Wednesday, February 17, 2016

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. 

No comments: