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.  

The most hipster Presidential Campaign ever between two professional politicians.

“I totally support reproductive rights, but not through the Planned Parenthood because they’re too bourgeois; the org I support you’ve probably never heard of.” Made up thought process of the Sanders Camp or actual campaign line written by one of those really enlightened staff members *side eye*.

“I supported the Planned Parenthood before they were a massive institution. I probably interned for them before the inauguration of the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award.” Made up Clinton Camp line. JK she’d never invoke Sanger with the race issues she’s been having.

Really, this is where we are? Wonk nerd wars? The Planned Parenthood isn’t authentic enough vs. the Planned Parenthood has been a pillar of strength and justice for women so kiss the ring?

That is mostly tongue and cheek, but Sanders calls the Planned Parenthood establishment, and Clinton calls to arms, and I’m scratching my head. Guys, lean in close, I have to say this as a whisper least the Marxists come for me…sometimes there is nothing wrong with the establishment. You know how I know? The Planned Parenthood provides comprehensive medical services to people who can’t afford them, and poor women need medical care too. Personally, I’m glad they aren’t considered a fringe group. If they were I probably wouldn’t have gone to them post college for birth control, and then where would we be?

Sanders is invoking this notion that to be part of the establishment means to be looked at with suspicion and that I can get behind. Remember from a Marxist tradition the government isn’t exactly useful or particularly trustworthy. Additionally, the Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign have power and money, and in DC, that plays. The Planned Parenthood isn’t just the clinic you went to in high school. It is part of a massive political organization (coming back to this), and the Human Rights Campaign, well let’s acknowledge they burned some bridges chasing the heteronormative institution of marriage. The Planned Parenthood is a political institution now. I don’t know the full history, but I can imagine this wasn’t entirely intentional. Instead, being under fire from the right perpetually has left them seeking legislative protection and friends. That said, we need to ask how these large political groups who don’t have a voting membership, but appear to represent entire populations are making their decisions. This is a discussion we should have. This is not the discussion we're having.

In response to Sanders, the HRC and PPact have issued statements about how they actively fight the establishment. This is true in a lot of ways. But fighting back against other wings of the establishment doesn’t mean you’re not part of it. In fact, if the other guys are taking you seriously, then you’re probably a powerhouse too. I mean, fuck it. Own it. Yeah, we’re part of the establishment, but we worked really hard and long to get to this damn table, and we don’t have the luxury or privilege turning our backs on principle. People died to get us here to break the silence that surrounds so much oppression (police brutality, hunger strikes, unsafe abortions, the willful ignorance of concerns of these populations by the government, the band plays on). Where is the press release from HRC or PPact invoking the privilege Sanders holds? He’s a white man who has held office for almost my entire life, maybe longer. Must be easy to call others establishment with that kind microphone in the safety of that privilege? Did the warm embrace of the other hetero white men in the halls of Congress include a “no homo” line? But you can’t shame Sanders without shaming Clinton too. Hell, Clinton probably sleeps on corporate money—can’t you see her pulling up a comforter in the middle of the night of sewn together $100 bills? 

But at the end of the day, these are two savvy lifetime politicians. If you’re expecting another else, then you haven’t been paying attention. And I don’t care which professional can convince the masses they have more “anti-establishment” or “authentic” street cred. Make no mistake, intentional or otherwise that is what is happening here. Both are trying to lay claim to the feeling of ostracization people feel in regards to the establishment, politics, and politicians. 

Below are two tweets that I saw about all this. The later one I might come back to in another blog post. I have a lot of thoughts about a reading group I attended last night. A lot of thoughts, but that second tweet highlights some of the discussion in this reading group about the centralization of class and “wait your turn” politics.

We respect https://twitter.com/SenSanders">@SenSanders. Disappointed to be called "establishment" as we fight like hell to protect women's health. https://t.co/kiimTsVw2x">https://t.co/kiimTsVw2x— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) https://twitter.com/PPact/status/689668293062455296">January 20, 2016

Look at that quote again. He literally sees abortion fights as an obstacle to accomplishing what he thinks is important.

— Jesse Berney (@jesseberney) https://twitter.com/jesseberney/status/690185214237282304">January 21, 2016

It was a legit hard question

Rape and this presidential campaign. Damn. I’m not even going to touch the Republicans here. But while the left is really concerned about Clinton taking responsibility for her husband’s sexual assaults, I’m looking forward to all the think pieces on Sanders’s campus rape remarks from his supporters. It’s fine. I’ll wait.

I want to be very clear, Hillary Clinton has been inconsistent on rape survivors. That said, she has made statements about her victim blaming past. If we want to talk about that, I can get behind it. I’m not however here for trying to get her to take responsibility for Bill’s actions. People are going to jump on that and claim no one is doing that, but let me lay this out for you. Hillary’s husband has a shameful history of assaulting women, which he had when in office. You know him; he is a public figure, used to be President. Hillary can make statements about Bill’s behavior but at the end of the day his behavior. I also caution against acting like Hillary should be running from Bill or taking some kind of militant stance. I don’t know their relationship except it is marriage. I do know when I found out a friend of mine was a predator; I didn’t take it well. I believed it immediately, but I had also for years defended and dismissed his predatory behaviors. Just pointing out this is a complicated personal issue. Hillary has said she failed women in the past for her positions on specific cases, and she says she’s changed her position. As someone who has also changed my mind on some things that’s enough for me. I know where Clinton falls, and, what's more, I know that she might blame victims again. But I also know that women can count on Hillary on the macro level even if she falls them on an individual level.

Bernie Sanders, when asked about campus sexual assault, took a criminal investigation stance. This is a legit stance. It was a legit hard question. Sanders’s stance is the wrong stance. It is also a little troubling given Sanders’s positions on other aspects of the criminal justice system. Sanders advocates for campus sexual assaults to be handled by the police. Below is the statement, and it reads like someone who isn’t familiar with rape, but thinks this is the way women want people to respond to it.

“Absolutely it is, and you’re right, it is an epidemic. And here’s what I think has to happen. Rape and assault is rape or assault whether it takes place on a campus or on a dark street. And if a student rapes a fellow student, that has got to be understood to be a very serious crime. It has got to get outside of the school and have a police investigation. And that has to take place.
“Too many schools now are saying, well, this is a student issue, let’s deal with it. I disagree with that. It is a crime, and it has to be treated as a serious crime. And you are seeing not the real horror of many women who have been assaulted or raped sitting in a classroom alongside somebody who raped them. Rape is a very, very serious crime. It has to be prosecuted, and it has to be dealt with."

Let’s table the discussion about how the police don’t believe victims, the systemic racism and sexism, and all the other shortcomings of the criminal justice system, but I’m coming back here. Campuses are required to investigate sexual assaults because of Title IX, which protects students’ rights to equal education opportunities for women and men including education free from harassment and assault based on sex. Campus rape is a civil rights violation. Colleges have to investigate even when a sexual assault isn’t officially reported. Moving forward, I’m going to demand my left candidates know this. Low bar for the men feminist, just know what Title IX is. I naturally have issues with campuses dealing with sexual assaults internally in a backroom, but I’m also not here for compulsory criminal reporting. Also, if justice (and we can talk about whether justice comes from a criminal system or not) is only pursued through the criminal justice system, then it is seen as an individual crime not necessarily a failure of an institution to protect their students from civil rights violations.

According to RAINN, for every 100 rapes, only two rapists spend time in prison. According to Kate Harding’s book Asking for It, the majority of police believe rape myths including most are false accusations. Just some perspective before we start advocating for a single approach to dealing with campus rape…because it is working so well for those, who seek justice through the criminal justice system. This doesn’t even include how notoriously racist the criminal justice system is or the steeper prosecution and penalties for black men, which Sanders knows about because he has spoken about the mass incarceration rates among black men. I can’t advocate for an exclusively criminal justice response to rape and sexual assault in one breath and the dismantling of the criminal justice system in the next. That said, there is a fine line here. And if anyone deserves extensive and over the top prison sentences it is rapists.

Sanders’s has been good on women, but moments like this make me wonder how many women in his campaign are up close advising him on how to answer questions. Does anyone in his campaign know what Title IX is? That person should have been the person advising Sanders’s on this question. My rough estimate is five women at Sanders's headquarters of 21 staff with two vacancies, roughly a quarter of his staff. This is kind of like when people are like how many women do you need? I need half; we’re half the population so it shouldn’t be that hard to find qualified women, but that is a pipe dream I know. I need enough women represented that a campaign gets women’s concerns right. That can be one or 21. I don’t care.

Sander’s is a good progressive, but once again, I’m wondering if he has a gender problem. His campaign, his grasp of the issues, etc., which leads me to being concerned about women during his Presidency. I know I’ll retain my reproductive freedom—but when the Republicans come for Title IX again (and they will) will Sanders have our back? What about other nuanced issues facing women and the gender nonconforming? Will Sanders have someone in the room who can explain it to him? I don’t demand he have every answer perfect, but guys someone needs to be there to talk him through it. If in the end, Sanders truly believes the criminal justice system is the only way, fine, he’s wrong but fine. I disagree with the guy I vote for all the time, but I wonder if anyone in his campaign has any kind of background on gender-based violence. Finally, as Clinton can change her mind so can Sanders; he has demonstrated with the Black Lives Matter movement that he can learn. I look forward to his more nuanced responses on questions like this one moving forward.

I’ve been called a lot of words beginning with C, but complacent hasn’t been one of them

To be honest, only cunt comes to mind. But I consider myself a contrarian so we’ll add that to cunt.

Complacent, though, that is shaming, right? Like, hey, you’re not doing enough for the status of women. Well, Debbie, (I can call her Debbie, right?) I think you’re not doing enough for women. I think it is easy to think of reproductive justice as the only women issue, and that should be our lady responsibility alone, but I feel like class issues are women’s issues and race issues, and the band plays on. And honestly, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of having one debate, one subject define who I am as a person. Welp, K has a vagina so abortion must be the issue for her. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t date anti-choice, but I like to think I’m more than my reproductive function regardless of whether I’m being defined by the right or left, men or women.

It is the time the men pull their fair share on this too. I know a lot of clinic escorts, want to guess how many men I know who do it? Yeah, none. Where are the progressive dudes? Right at the socialist reading group. What guys don’t want to maybe take a bullet for other’s civil rights? I’m being hyperbolic and dramatic. But there is something to this. I enjoyed the reading group too, but I’m wondering where the commitment to social justice ends. Hell, where does the commitment to economic justice end? Because there was a lot of condescension and shade thrown in that room focused on a man who was clearly struggling with a lot of issues.

But I’m circling back to what I believe to be the real problem. This idea that woman have to run to the front on reproductive issues but stand in the back on others. It is what the left does to people of color too, so don’t get me wrong I’m not blind. Black men can talk about police brutality, but we don’t want to hear about the long-term consequences of a completely and actively undereducated population or reparations. No, we should frame the education discussion in this country about whether or not we should pay for Trump’s kid’s college education (Hi Hilary!). If we’re going to point fingers about those are who aren’t doing enough, let’s call some out: mainstream Democrats, including the ladies, and the white dudes on our team. They are complacent. They are so complacent they think they can continue to tell us where to show up and what to do, and we’ll just do it because who else do we have? Pass. I’m not here for that. If you can’t meet me for mine, then I can’t come for yours. Some groups/people are all about solidarity, but those groups and people seem to get the shaft when it is time for people to show up for them. There is a wait your turn mentality around all of this. This “you won’t mind” concept that what they prioritize is somehow more important than everything else.

For example, when you talk to progressives about antichoicers in the states stripping rights away they laugh it off like these are some fundamentalist zealots—won’t go anywhere. They’d be right on one count; these people are ridiculous, but it is a lot less funny now that there are three clinics in Texas. What the Dems and progressive don’t seem to realize that with every election cycle where people of color and women lose more and more rights, there are fewer reasons to vote Democrat.

Well, Debbie threw down the gantlet. Young women are complacent, well maybe, but let’s see how complacent they are come the primary—maybe all the ladies can write in bell hooks—or the general when they stay at home. When the left pretends their base will just show up because they did for Obama.