It has been a while but we have a woman nominee for a major political party

I've been busy this summer, but upon getting back from Arizona (and watching the RNC while crossing my fingers Cleveland would exist after it), I wanted to post something this week. So I'm posting this video of a 102 year old woman who got to cast AZ's delegates for Hillary.



But I wanted to follow it up with this image:

Wednesday's front page with coverage of Hillary Clinton's historic night at #DemConvention pic.twitter.com/PhAySTk5JU

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) July 27, 2016

We come so far and got absolutely no where. Well done guys. Well done. Regardless of your feelings on Hillary last night was incredible.

All anti-choicer want to punish people who have abortions

Oh, Trump didn’t come up with this all on his own. He’s just so stupid he can’t stop talking. The plight of the white man, I guess. They will talk and talk because they think everyone should have to listen to them, or it is censorship or ethics in gaming, I’m never really sure nor do I particularly care.

Let me break this down in the simplest of terms: antichoicers want to ban abortion. You know criminalize it. So anyone having an abortion would be breaking the law. Thus, if caught, they would be punished. Everyone got that, show of hands?

A lot has been going through my mind the last couple of weeks including this “Clinton is a liar” thing, which feels really gendered, but I don’t want to get into the concept women are inherently untrustworthy because I know fellas that weren't your intention, and of course, your intention is what is the most important. So hold back the male tears. A friend of mine used the phrase “politically dishonest” which I’d like to unpack with him sometime. I suspect this means Clinton will say anything to be elected. This raises a few questions for me: Are all politicians who change their minds, liars?; Are you holding different candidates to different standards based on whether we like them—likability if you will?; What is the point of debate if not to sharpen and expose leaders to better ideas?; and what is the point of any of this?

The last thing taking up a lot of my mind is the revolution. It seems like everyone is cool with the revolution happening (even if we have to endure a Republican president to facilitate it—I’m looking at you Susan) with little thought to what the means or would look like. A woman I know posted about how people who are willing to elect Clinton over a Republican need to check their privilege because obviously a Trump Presidency will usher in the revolution. I feel like it is the opposite. People who are willing to endure a Republican in office for the revolution need to check themselves. I bring this up following the Republican front-runner arguing to punish women who have abortions and the doctors who provide them. And I want to bring a little reality into the discussion of the revolution.

Some of us are more likely than others to usher in the revolution on our bodies or maybe over them is the more appropriate phrasing. The obvious people are going to be poor, black, trans, and/or women. You know the one’s you can murder and violate with little consequence at this point. So yeah, a Trump presidency will probably get us all into the streets where the police state can open fire on the same people they have been victimizing for decades. Gee, the revolution sounds a lot like the status quo right now. Talk about a revolution. Anyone calling for a revolution think it is going to be bloodless? Because we can’t have demonstrations about the murder of children without tear gas and clubs. They bomb and open fire on clinics.

I’m just not seeing where the white male body is under fire. While, Sanders has a diverse group of supporters, we (non-white men) know what happens when they (white men) get together. Men think a room comprised of 30% women in is overwhelmingly women…their perspective is skewed. So forgive me for thinking when the majority of Sander’s team leadership is male that maybe we’re going to be getting a lot of the white male perspective. Hell, I’ve been in rooms with one white dude, and he never shuts the fuck up, talking over anyone and usually everyone. Enlightening and liberating us, I guess. Alright, I’m done complaining about the status quo, shortsightedness, and the inevitability of things. 

But that’s not what was said

No one is any more qualified than anyone else to hold office based on social constructs. It flows so well, doesn’t it? This is what Killer Mike was probably trying to say, well this is probably the principle behind what he was trying to say. However, even saying this is kind of offensive because you’re reducing those not in support of your candidate as voting purely based on their gender, and Hillary Clinton is qualified for a lot of reason, some of which you might not agree with, but I don’t think you’d find any Hillary supporter saying she is only qualified because she’s a woman. No, she’s qualified as Secretary of State and a US Senator. After all, wasn’t someone just saying she’s establishment? Doesn’t that fly in the face of implying she isn’t qualified or that her supporters don’t think she is qualified and only voting for her because she’s a woman? But I digress.

Back to the point, right? Killer Mike said, a “uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president.” Let’s begin by the exclusionary and the obvious: no all women have a uterus. Also, given the rampant sexism in US history, do you really want to draw attention to the fact that having a uterus has traditionally disqualified you from being president? Look, I’m not even mad. I can’t be. I don’t have the time or energy. But this is the kind of stuff that gives me pause. Look Bernie isn’t responsible for what his supporters say (though, I’m not sure team Bernie would be so kind to high profile Clinton supporters stepping in it on gender last week, and I wasn’t). Also, let me stop you right there if you think citing a anti-racism and feminist scholar gives you free range to say stupid shit. After all, didn't I just write on Steinem a few days ago? 

See it gives me pause, turns my attention back to team Bernie, and what do I see? Well Bernie’s litmus test for the Supreme Court is a willingness to overturn Citizen’s United, and when pushed by the interviewer, only that. Now I hate Citizen’s United, but I’m looking for a Justice who supports civil rights. See how I said civil rights and not the right to choose? Because I recognize that the Supreme Court will rule on Roe, fair housing, and the constitutionality of state voting laws. For those not paying attention: women, LGBTQ, and people of color. They will be ruling on our right to determine our health choices, where people can live, and who gets to participate in the political process. But yeah, they should overturn Citizen’s United.

Well, we’ll see how this goes. I mean, I’m still feeling the Bern, despite and in spite of some of his supporters. But I’m really hesitant every time someone starts talking about how economic justice will deliver us all from systemic racism and sexism because it won’t. At best people who believe that are naive, and worst willfully ignorant. Want an example? Young people love free college education. Yes, yes. But those colleges are still going to have entrance exams right? This is when you think back to your education, kids coming from public schools in low-income black neighborhoods, often vocational schools, will not benefit from free college education because they never got the first free one. See there are neighborhoods where entire generations are under-educated, and they are mostly black, and free tuition doesn’t guarantee an education if you can’t pass the test or you’ve ridden the school to prison pipeline.

How about gender? Well, what does the government funded childcare program look like? Specifically, who will be employed and at what kind of wages? Because we know women, usually women of color, are disproportionately represented in high turnover, low-wage, emotionally exhausting care work. So are we still going to have a gendered workforce where women (largely women of color) make up a service industry for shitty wages? Cool, continue the gendered division of labor that keeps black women taking care of white children and prevent them from providing care to their own children. Because I haven’t heard Bernie endorse the CA House Rep who wanted to pay welfare recipients to stay at home with their kids or address the privilege paid childcare would be for some.  What about rape? What economic justice policy is going to fix that? What about police brutality? What is the economic policy that will stop the police from executing black people in the streets or worse in jail where no one can see?

I don’t think Bernie has the answers to these questions, and he shouldn’t have to. He’s one old dude dancing to the social justice jam. I’m in. But I’m not in for some bastardization of social justice that prioritizes class oppression over the others. I’m not here for that. But you can't reduce everything to class. Oppression isn't that simple. 

I sincerely see this woman as one of my greatest teachers. Thank U #JaneElliot pic.twitter.com/l6MbWFrOZk

— Killer Mike (@KillerMike) February 17, 2016

Alright Gloria about this white feminism, this is long overdue

Guys, Gloria Steinem, is the worst. There is a long sorted drama-filled history of her role in the women's movement. But at the end of the day, Gloria is a second wave, white feminist, and she believes all the things that go along with that. However, this weekend, we've reached peak WTF moment. What did she say? Well on Bill Maher, she announced women supporting Bernie are doing it because we're boy crazy:

“Women are more for [Hillary Clinton] than men are...First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience...Not to over-generalize, but...Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age; women get more radical because they lose power as they age.And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie...”

My lesbian friends have a lot to say about this. Mostly, *squinty eyes* come again? Look, I don't have the figures of the demographic breakdown. I suspect slightly more men support Bernie; I also suspect that number increases slightly among young men. But I don't decide who I'm voting for based on where the boys are. Hell, if some of these supporters aren't trying to drive women away in droves. 

This is offensive on so many levels. Young women are so easily swayed by men, Gloria? Really? And Maher is right if a man said this NOW would be all over their shit. This kind of comment is so demeaning to young women and supporters of Bernie. It is also indicative of a huge split in the women's movement and in feminism as we know it. Gloria and Hillary don't represent the kind of feminism I believe in. I respect their ability to self-identify as feminists, but that is a narrow and limited version of feminism that helps only a few.

This bro thing

So I wrote this and then deleted it, but then again someone I respect on Twitter decided the people complaining about the Bernie Bro thing are a privileged class of people not used to having to deal with the huddled masses who disagree with them. To which I must ask, have you been a woman on the Internet? Seems like a privileged class doesn’t want to be called names. Of course, that is not to say that journalists aren’t a privileged class. In fact they are especially when you consider the means it takes to become a journalist. However, I feel like this person and I are oversimplifying it.

I think I know what is happening. I could be wrong, though. I don’t think this has anything to do with fact or fiction; I think this is an irrational respond to being called a name. I’ve been reading a lot on race right now. I just finished Between the World and Me, and I’ve been casually reading Being White Being Good. So, I think when men identifying supporters of Bernie Sanders hears the phrase Bernie Bros they think they are being called sexist and by extension their candidate. I think a lot of them have gone off the deep end thinking that this is somehow comparable to the massive amounts of sexism hurled at women, and they think the ladies are overreacting to supporters of Bernie being assertive. But let’s use race because it might be easier (the only time this may ever be true)…

I participate in racism by living in a racist society. I am not racist (though I’m willing to listen to that argument), but I am complicit in racism. My whiteness oppresses people of color. The benefits and privileges of whiteness bestowed on me creates, adds to, and reinforces the racism inflicted on people of color. Now, I didn’t get up this morning, and think to myself how am I going to oppress people of color, but my very being does. But no one wants to be called a racist, right? Because I’m complicit in this system of racism, I pay close attention to how my words and actions are perceived and do the work to prevent myself from actively participating in racism.

So, the patriarchy, we live in it. Because we live in it, all men oppress all women. Now we can discuss the ways different privileges interact with different oppressions (no hierarchy mind you, but interactions) and the intersectionality that goes along with it. But sorry dudes, you’re going to have to try as hard as I do or even at all and no you don’t get an ally cookie. You participate in sexism just by existing this society. You benefit from privileges and oppress others just by being you.

Now, here is where I offend everyone. White, straight guys are the worst. They are the Britta of every relationship. Of course, I’m referring to the group as a monolith which is reductionist. But, could you imagine people of color complaining like they do? I mean think back to the assertion that there should be reparations. And we already know no one gives a damn about the sentiments of the women folk—history taught us that. If it weren't for the straight up denial by some of Bernie’s supporters of any sexism in the Sanders’ camp, this might have gone away. But nope, the men in the Sanders’ camp are really upset someone might call them a bro (thereby point out their complicity in sexism). So they respond with an assertiveness which borders on aggression to continue denying their complicity or worse, to push some idea that this is all in the heads of women. There is a term for this: “gaslighting”. It refers to abusers convincing victims, and those victims seek help through that everything is in the victim’s head. Now, for those of you who know me in real life know I’m over the men we have to coddle. I’m not here for that. I give exactly zero fucks about your hurt feelings, which is about the same as this kind of man gives for my hurt feelings.

So everyone, repeat after me, “I am complicit in the oppression of others in some way.”

Now: “Oppressed peoples get to define what is offensive.”

Now: “There are sexists who support Bernie Sanders, but not everyone who supports Sanders is sexist.”

Now, we’ll all hold hands.

I follow a lot of black women on Twitter, and I have to say, man the crap they get from strangers. But moreover, there seems to be this aggression from progressives to “those who vote against their own interests”. This is a level of insidious paternalism that is really offensive. It assumes you know better, and people aren’t capable of determining their self-interests. Additionally, I’m probably voting for Bernie, but after the exposure I’ve had to self-identified socialists the past few months, I know my interests aren’t their interests. Are my interests more aligned with Clinton? No. Bernie is more my style, but he like many socialists before him reduces everything to class, and while I’m all about the class inequities train, I recognize the intersections of oppressions, and I know eliminating classism will not save us—well not all of us. My concern here with the alleged Bernie Bros and those who swear up and down they don’t exists, will they have my back after the class revolution? Or will they be settled and silent? What about Black Lives Matter? Are these guys going to take to the streets? But with every passing day, I become more skeptical. 

Fuck all the men on the left.

I don’t know how to put this as to not anger anyone, but then I remembered I don’t care. Over the weekend, I heard a socialist invoke intersectionality to dismiss the concerns of women and black people because CLASS! I’m not even going to highlight the irony there, just take a minute and bask in it and the total lack of self-awareness. Lean in everyone, capitalism sucks. Capitalism has been notoriously bad for workers, particularly workers who identify as women and people of color (you know the one’s excluded from the unions early on). Capitalism also came after gendered and racial divisions. This is why no one likes you. I swear to god every time I go to one of these things, it is an exercise in self-control. Then the group on to discuss gender as a binary, which explains the lack of gender queer and Trans individuals in that room, in a city with a radial Trans population. But is fine. White guys doing it for themselves. They’ll liberate all of us, and we can say thank you, politely with a smile. There was a very good point raised that women’s issues, issues important to people of color, etc. are optional for the left whereas the labor struggle is a given. That resonates, and the group quickly moved on.

But why am I complaining about all this? Some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton from the left are sexist. To dismiss them is to dismiss the concerns of women on the left. Some of the critiques of Clinton would be sound if they didn’t devolve into gendered critiques. The language you use matters, and I’m offended that men think they can tell me what feminism is. Fuck you buddy. Fuck you. Was that not clear? F-u-c-k you.

You know what I think is an affront to feminism? Men deciding what it is without doing any work. Hillary Clinton is a feminist. She is a radical or a liberal feminist, and if any of you guys bothered reading a feminist theory book or even just googling it you’d know what that means. The liberal and radical feminists fought for legal rights and protections; they were less concerned with economic inequality and more concerned with being able to make medical decisions without their husbands. I’m not a radical or a liberal feminist. I’m a Marxist feminist, but I appreciate and respect their struggles while I disagree with them.

But let’s talk about some patriarchy and condescension. When you say women are defending Hillary because she is a woman that is offensive. It means women will back any woman regardless of politics. There is also a weird essentialism happening here too, and I’ve seen it written a few times about women supporting anyone with a vagina, which is weird since all women don’t have vaginas, but what can we expect? Nuance? Please, not these guys strong point. But you know what, men should totally tell me what I think and why I think it. That totally isn’t sexist and condescending.

Don’t get me wrong, the struggle is real, but you don’t get to decide if something is coming off as sexist. Sure it wasn’t your intention, but *shrug*. I might have cried in a room where everyone was chanting liar while Clinton was on screen. It is an emotion inducing word for me. See men call a lot of women liars usually survivors of sexual assault. It has at some point become gendered; women lie. We’re seen as less trustworthy than men. Now, Clinton has lied about things during her political, which makes it hard, but everything is hard, and if it is too hard to be specific and clear then you shouldn’t be talking about it. But every time I read someone’s take on all this as all in women’s minds, all I hear is gaslighting. I guess women are just too fucking stupid to know when something sexist is going on. Must be in their heads because the women folk are irrational. Forget the dude who said some pretty offensive things to me when I pointed out the false equivalency of the first Jewish President and first woman president. These things are not the same. Well, that isn’t evidence anyway, right? That is just me being hypersensitive (which as all of you know is totally a word to describe me), and it is anecdotal at best. 

Socialism is for everybody?

[Housekeeping: I know the tweets didn’t embed properly from the last post, but I tried several times to fix it, and I have zero fucks to give if it isn’t pretty. The quote took Bernie out of context, but that is the point isn’t? This is what people hear when he’s speaking? Maybe that should be addressed at some point?]

 A friend emailed me last week about my recent post, and I’m still thinking through things in that. But he asked what I thought about this reading group I attended on Women and Socialism by Sharon Smith, and I have a lot of thoughts.

Some of this is straight up me. I’ve been the only feminist in the room, but usually that is when I’m with a lot of people who are unaware of social justice. I’m often the only or most socialist person in the room, but that is because more often than not I’m in a room full of feminists. The other big part of this being my issue is I didn’t like the book. It was bad feminist scholarship, but this is because it is Marxist scholarship. The consensus in the room seemed to be the book was arguing all women should be socialists. I’m not 100% sure on that. I don’t think it was saying socialism is for everyone. What I think is a strange way this book was pushing bell hooks’ argument feminism is for everybody.

You ever been in a room with people who are really proud of themselves for asking the important questions, but can’t get past their framework to understand the answers? That is what this book was. The book wanted to talk about the women movement/feminism and socialism, but instead of conducting a thorough research project on Marxist Feminist theory, we got a history of feminism with a Marxist interpretation.

Then there was the discussion, and I remembered why I had problems with Marxist scholarship. Immediately, someone started critiquing, arguing the text so much in the book was based on as a lesser Marx/Engel’s text. This is true, but there wasn’t much of a discussion as to why that is. Well, there aren’t a lot of Marx texts about women. This is where including Marxist Feminist scholarship would be useful. There are feminist scholars who have made the connections. By in large these theorists were missing from the text. [Aside: I’m ready to throw down over anyone who wants to talk about domestic labor without referencing Foucault. I did a little sleuthing, and I know the Jacobin had a piece a few years ago about Foucault and his contributions to the left. The argument was we can critique him. Well, feminist scholarship is a critique of all other scholarship. Sometimes it is too much critique and not enough discussion about the actual arguments.] But really, what the book was trying to do was impose Marxist thought on the women’s movement. I was struck during the conversation how some things never change; Marxist thought breaks while feminist thought bends. This is because in Marxism we have to travel back every time to the beginning and apply principles, which can be really hard with some topics. In feminist thought, we use theorists that apply, and when one theory doesn’t work, we acknowledge it and say, this, this thing is where more work needs to be done. Then someone else does that work, but they find something else, and the scholarship is constantly changing.

One of the discussion leaders started talking about the books distinction between patriarchy and the patriarchy. The idea being people who say patriarchy aren’t referring to the theory that says all men oppress all women. The book then continues to talk about how patriarchy is bad for men too; bell hooks says so. This was when the book lost me, but the idea this book is for feminists to realize our relationship to socialism is also lost. This was when the discussion went off the rails for me too. When I say patriarchy I mean all men oppress all women and those who reside outside of the gender binary. This is the social structure we have. Not only that but for me the patriarchy is more than just gender (by the way completely a gender binary in this book save two references); it is race, class, sexual orientation, etc. (bell hooks said this too). White people are complicit in the oppression of black people because society is racist. When a group of people is determined by the way, they compare to those in power than any of those power traits you, have oppress others. It doesn’t matter if you mean for them to or not. For me, that line in the book is where I figured out this book wasn’t meant for me. It was meant for the men in that room talking about it. See, feminism isn’t scary. They even share some socialist roots with us. Nothing about the exclusion of traditionally feminine (and often black) labor from labor unions, though.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the reading group. I’ll go again. I’m just not sure how much they want to hear from people who disagree. Women’s Studies, we’d shout into the void—a room full of people who agreed with us, but I don’t know if the members of this group ever got that or if that is one of the functions in of the group. I'm struggling a lot recently with the way socialism interacts with other fields. I’m specifically thinking about how the Bernie campaign can’t go two feet without offending someone. I don’t understand, but then again, maybe it is just this bending vs. breaking idea. A world without capitalism would be great, but it wouldn’t be a world without oppression. Economic inequity isn’t the root of all oppression. Additionally, it diminishes the lived experiences of a lot of people to say economic equity will fix it. There is a wait your turn notion here that Bernie’s camp invokes in everyone they talk to apparently. That is what rubs people the wrong way.