Politics

Top 5 Feminist Articles About Hillary Clinton from 2015

shipleal, , , Leave a comment

FullSizeRender

2015 was an exciting year for Hillary Clinton fans. We cheered her on as she officially launched her candidacy, ooh-ed and ah-ed as she raised a boatload of money, and breathed heavy sighs of relief when she kicked butt during the first few Democratic debates. If the polls are right, Hillary fans are ready to see her crush the competition in the upcoming Democratic primaries, and we’re ready to root her on to win it all in November. 

As I reflect back on 2015 and Hillary’s candidacy thus far, I have much to say about the missing feminist groundswell to support her campaign. Most of my feminist friends (if such categorizations can be made) are tepidly supporting her, if that. Instead of creating fun websites, blogs, and Tumblr posts in the same vein as Notorious RBG or Feminist Ryan Gosling – feeds about what an amazing feminist Hillary is and will be as our next president – it feels like many of us women’s rights supporters have stayed pretty quiet.

In fact, I’d wager more was written about how Hillary is not feminist enough, not the right type of feminist, not connecting with certain women, or why feminists should support Bernie Sanders than a) why feminists are excited to support Hillary and b) any feminist analyses of relevant campaign issues (e.g. sexism, sexism, and also, sexism). More on this soon.

Despite all this, I did read a handful of very compelling pieces about Hillary and feminism in 2015. So, while there weren’t oodles of them to choose, I’ve compiled a list of my top 5 feminist articles about Hillary Clinton from 2015 here:

1. Lena Dunham interviews Hillary Clinton
In the kickoff edition of Lenny http://www.lennyletter.com/, Lena Dunham and Jenni Konner’s interesting newsletter that covers feminism and politics among other topics, Dunham interviews Hillary. Here, twenty-something Dunham asks Hillary the “question on every Lenny reader’s lips: Do you consider yourself a feminist?”, allowing Hillz to answer forcefully: absolutely.

The Lenny Interview: Hillary Clinton

2. Feministing blogger Dana Bolger takes on the “Millennials hate Hillary” trope
I love Feministing, and Dana Bolger offers a great example of why it’s such a great feminist blog with her post ripping the Sunday New York Times’ “think piece” on what Bolger calls the “feminist generation war.” Bolger rightly characterizes this war—and the idea perpetuated by these types of articles that older women “get” feminism and thus support Hillary, while younger women just aren’t that smart and therefore don’t support her—as dangerous.

Dear New York Times: The Real Reason Young Feminists Reject Hillary

3. Michelle Goldberg shares her experiences as a Hillary supporter among Bernie fans
I want to pin Michelle Goldberg’s line that Bernie Sanders’ campaign has “unleashed a minor plague of progressive white men confidently explaining feminism to the rest of us” on my wall for the next time I have a conversation with someone about why supporting Hillary isn’t what feminism is about. Myokay dokay.

Men Explain Hillary to Me

4. Suzanna Danuta Walters lays out her case for supporting Hillary
The Nation is such a progressive, left-leaning publication that Suzanna Danuta Walters’ piece about why she’s supporting Hillary could actually be considered provoking in itself. Walters lays out her case for why Hillary in the White House would benefit the women’s equality movement, from policy to politics to needed culture shifts.

Why This Socialist Feminist Is for Hillary

5. Sady Doyle takes on the misogynist attacks against Hillary Clinton and questions why liking her is a subversive act
In this thought-provoking piece, Sady Doyle tackles Hillary’s “likeability” issues, telling us that liking Hillary has become a subversive act. Doyle also asks her readers how long they would make it if people treated them the way many treat Hillary. I couldn’t agree with Doyle more that it’s not fair that Hillary must “climb over a barbed-wire fence of hatred in order to change the world.”

More Than Likable Enough

So, dear readers, those are my top 5. Are there others I missed? Send them my way! And because writing it on the interwebs makes it true, in addition to building my upper body strength and meditating more, my New Years’ resolution is to help grow this list in 2016.

Why Bernie

shipleal, , , Leave a comment

IMG_0829

More than a few Democrats I love and respect are considering supporting Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary election. The Democratic field is all of two people, and the other candidate is a household name with exceptional political pedigree—so the decision to vote for a relatively unknown “democratic socialist” Senator from Vermont is not the path of least resistance. If you’re a Bernie fan, I assume you’ve chosen to support him because you’ve read, you’ve studied, and you’ve differentiated. If you’re on the fence, I ask that you do just a bit more reading, studying, and differentiating before you buy into “feeling the Bern.” I respectfully submit the following six questions for your consideration in this effort.

A note before we jump in: I’m a proud Hillary supporter. I have a Hillary 2016 bumper sticker and I’ve contributed to her campaign. I hope to write more over the primary season about why I support her, and why I think she’s—hands down—the best person for the job. However, this piece is not about why I’m a Hillary fan. Instead, my objective is to challenge good Democrats—folks who I believe care about our chances of actually winning in 2016—on why Bernie.

Is he an effective politician?
Bernie has been an elected official for decades, but he’s worked in Washington, D.C.—where he’d arguably need to be most effective as our next president—since 2007. In that time, he has authored and passed one substantive piece of legislation. That bill, S.893, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013, is a good one. But it’s only one bill in nine years. Per the political scientists who study these things, another measure of success on Capitol Hill is counting up how many bills an elected official cosponsors that actually become law. In these nearly 9 years, Bernie has cosponsored 33 bills that became law.

Not bad, but let’s contrast this to Hillary. She was in the Senate for about the same amount of time as Bernie—9 years—and passed 3 of her own bills, while 74 that she cosponsored became law. Of importance in this comparison, Hillary accomplished her legislative goals during W.’s tenure in the White House, and Bernie has had the privilege of working with a friendly president who would be way more inclined to sign his legislation. Speaking of Obama, he was in the Senate for 2 terms, passed 2 of his own bills, and cosponsored 29 that passed.

Bernie’s relative inability to pass legislation in Washington D.C. with a friendly president translates to a track record of ineffectiveness when you compare him to Hillary. He might be saying all the right things and you might align with his policy positions, but it’s all for naught if he can’t get anything done once elected.

Does he have friends?
After serving in one of the most prestigious institutions in American politics for nearly a decade, none of Bernie’s colleagues in the Senate have endorsed his candidacy for president. In contrast, 30 sitting Senators have come out in support of Hillary, added to a long list of governors and Members of Congress. Tellingly, Bernie’s own state delegation—both Senator Pat Leahy and Vermont Governor Shumlin—have endorsed Hillary. Bernie’s fellow Senators and his state delegation are the folks that he works most closely with—and the ones he’ll need to lean on to get anything done if his campaign is ultimately successful. With no endorsements and seemingly no friends among his colleagues, my read is that Bernie has not prioritized cultivating professional relationships that are vital to being effective as a president.

Now, I can imagine this lack of support could be perceived positively by some in the Bernie camp. Bernie’s an outsider! He doesn’t need friends in Washington, D.C.! The political elite support Hillary because they’re scared not to! Think back to Barack Obama’s first candidacy and how he created waves by “stealing” endorsements from Hillary among elected officials in Washington, D.C. Barack’s colleagues believed in his message, but they also liked him after working closely with him. They were willing to go out on a limb to endorse his candidacy because of the relationships he cultivated. All to say, it is possible to be a progressive “outsider” and also well-liked and supported by the insiders you’ll need to move forward your policy priorities as president. Bernie is not that candidate.

What do you know about him?
Even though Bernie has been on the national stage for a while, most Americans—including his supporters I’ve been talking with—know very little about him beyond policy stances and soundbites. I knew nothing, so googled “Bernie Sanders” and “family.” I found this Politico article that sheds light on Bernie’s early days in politics, wives, kids—and most importantly, disinterest in talking about his personal life.

His reticence to create a narrative around who he is as a candidate beyond the issue he cares about should be a gigantic red flag for anyone thinking this man can actually win a national election. It is unfortunate that a candidate’s personal life is important in presidential politics, but it’s our reality. The fact that Bernie has been married multiple times or had a kid out of wedlock doesn’t really set him apart from other politicians—or even most Americans—but it’s vital that he address it head on and craft a narrative that allows voters to get to know him and like him as a person. Policies are important, but they don’t win elections: people do. If you like Bernie, I’d ask questions about the man behind the message—come next year, the Republicans most definitely will.

Is he really your political kindred spirit?
If Bernie is looking good because the 2016 presidential election is all about the issues, then I’d urge you to take this short, online political quiz. It’s an over-simplified Internet game, and we can all acknowledge these aren’t exactly accurate going in, but in this instance, I think it’s an effective indicator of political kindred spirit-ness.

As an example, I’m a progressive feminist and a bleeding heart Democrat, and this quiz tells me I align with Bernie 97%… and with Hillary 96%. When there are major issues like effectiveness, character, and electability, my read is that 1% does not a kindred spirit make.

Perhaps your results see more differentiation and your Bernie score is 5% higher than Hillary. 10%? Fine. But the Democratic field is as thin as it is diverse on policy issues. We’ve got two candidates who really aren’t that far apart when it comes down to it. And policy stances being equal, I’m putting my support behind the candidate with a proven track record who is campaigning to win.

Why can he be inspirational?
He’s fired up. He’s on message. His daily emails include words like “political revolution.” I get it—Bernie’s a good, progressive candidate with a good, progressive message. And I fully admit that Hillary is often stiff and appears more scripted on the campaign trail. But could she really roll up her sleeves at a podium, hair all askew, spit flying from her mouth in a passionate rant and still be considered a viable candidate?

The answer is obviously no and the reason has to do with our different expectations of men and women politicians, particularly on the stump. Hillary is bound by expectations we don’t have of Bernie, and I think this is at play in how “inspirational” Americans are finding her as a candidate. It’s worth considering the impact of what the New Yorker’s Allyson Hobbs calls the “enthusiasm gap,” and how willing we are to consider Hillary’s candidacy in this light.

Keep in mind that great candidates can make lousy presidents, and less inspired candidates can be incredibly effective leaders. And because I can’t not say it, don’t kid yourself that well-attended speeches in progressive cities mean Bernie will win Ohio and Florida for us come November 2016.

It’s all about the money?
I’ve heard from a handful of Bernie supporters that one of the most pressing reasons to support him is his campaign against “big money” in politics and unwillingness to play the “big money game” considered necessary to win the White House. This in contrast to Hillary, who is accepting money from icky folks like lobbyists for the prison industrial complex. I could write pages upon pages about money in politics, so am offering very abridged thoughts here.

Let’s get one thing straight: it is illegal to accept a campaign donation in exchange for voting a certain way or making certain policy decisions. That’s unethical and politicians rightly go to jail for it. In addition, both Bernie and Hillary support overturning Citizens United, and both say they’ll use this policy position as a litmus test for choosing any new Supreme Court nominees. So, the real difference is how they’re fundraising.

There’s no denying that Bernie is raising lots of low-dollar donations and Hillary, while similarly fundraising amongst us low-donor types, is relying on bundlers and larger checks to hit her big time fundraising goals. She has these high dollar goals because she’s looking to win an election against a party backed by billionaires. We’re in a game of big money, and to get elected, you need to raise big money. Bernie wants to win the presidency on small-dollar donations? I want a pet unicorn and a free trip to Hawaii. Unfortunately, this election cycle, even Hillary’s efforts to fundraise via bundled contributions won’t touch the impact the other side’s super PACs will have on the race. It’s almost like Bernie is currently operating in a vacuum. While it may seem revolutionary now, in the long run it feels like either naivety or a lack of commitment to winning the race.

One other quick point: the evil prison lobbyists are professional fundraisers. They earn their paychecks in part by fundraising for candidates for elected office so they can tell their clients how much “influence” they have. But these guys aren’t really Hillary supporters. They’re just hedging their bets by contributing to the candidates they think will win—if you dig, you’ll see the same lobby shops are giving money to both sides of any given race. Right now, they’re donating to Hillary because they think she’ll win. If Bernie wins the Democratic primary, private prison lobbyists are not going to sit out the race—they will just start donating to his campaign. Will that mean that he won’t support prison reform policies? All to say, although we’d like it to be, it’s not as simple as judging a candidate by the checks they’re cashing.

 

My goal here was to respectfully raise the red flags I see in Bernie’s candidacy and pose questions that I’d want answered before casting my ballot for him. I’m sure there are issues I’ve missed, and positions I’ve perhaps mischaracterized. I look forward to feedback and, moreover, a robust political discussion as we move toward the Democratic debates this fall and early caucuses next year.

Note: this post was first published on fortysevenseventyeight.wordpress.com.

Knowing How We Know

shipleal, , Leave a comment

There’s something about the experience of being in my own body that does not translate into being able to figure out what I look like. It’s an odd thing to say, but it’s my lived experience. I suppose that most of the time, I have a pretty good sense of how others see me. I hear feedback about how a dress looks or what friends think of certain jeans. I look at photos or I ask questions. Sometimes, though, I’m completely out of whack despite these inputs.

To be perfectly honest, it’s really just anxiety about my weight. I can’t figure out if I’m twenty pounds heavier than I was last month or only four. If I go on a long run, I am decidedly seven pounds lighter. If I eat Doritos and M&Ms, well, it’s Fatty McGhee for me. Again, clothes fitting any which way doesn’t help, nor does a mirror. I’ve got a skewed self-perception that translates into inconsistency in my own sense of my physical presence. It’s an odd mental block that means I’m challenged in being able to figure out what me looks like through my own eyes.

—

Understandably, everyone is talking nonstop about Syria. Obama said he wants to respond decisively but needs Congressional approval, and Congress said it’s not yet sure and needs more time on cable news to discuss. Pundits are weighing in, too. Maureen Dowd wrote an interesting piece last weekend about the problem of Syria, where she argued that we’re making a decision about whether to engage in the shadow of Bush’s Iraq war. It’s a pretty simple observation, but an important one in trying to figure out why certain progressive voices are supporting the president and some allies of the Department of Defense are uncharacteristically holding back.

The whole situation feels strange to me because we’re trying to decide the correct course of action while also facing questions about our identity that seem incongruent with how we perceive ourselves as Americans. It’s not abnormal for our leaders to ignore America’s own issues of poverty, hunger, and lack of access over the concerns of a country most of us can’t find on a map. It is odd that they’re talking about what it means to be a superpower, how the world will perceive us, or whether the decision to engage is based on conscience and morals or other, more nefarious incentives.

Perhaps thanks to Bush (!), Americans are less willing to sign off on WMDs meaning a military invasion regardless of the cost or consequence. But if it doesn’t correlate anymore, are we still the greatest country in the world? Are we dependable? Who are we to the rest of the world? More importantly, who are we to ourselves?

—

I listened to an older episode of This American Life last week that they re-broadcasted for Labor Day weekend as a sort of summer finale. The entire show was a series of stories the reporters put together after spending a few days at a highway rest stop interviewing the staff, people on their way to vacations, etc.—it’s a great show if you have the time.

Toward the end of the hour, Nancy’s Updike’s interview with a middle-aged guy named Dan touched me deeply. Dan was on his way home from spending time with his sons post-divorce and Nancy prodded him to talk about how things had changed for him and his family. At one point in the story, Dan says this about his ex-wife:

She didn’t want me to go to the house to pick the boys up. And then, you know, one week we’re having a good conversation and the next week something like that comes up, and you’re like [GASP]. You have the thing, you want to call that person and yell at them, and talk to them about it, but you don’t have that relationship anymore.

Something about Dan’s last sentiment—about how relationships change so that intimacy and closeness just disappears—it struck a nerve with me. Everyone knows things change, but sometimes you’re not ready for the coldness of the realization because it drains any hope you’d been storing up that things could be different.

Pivots in how we know someone else or even in how we know ourselves aren’t easy. We have to be able to see things accurately, or at least know when our perceptions are colored. Perhaps we can even identify why there’s a hue on our glasses in the first place. We have to be able to answer difficult questions about what change means for our future. And we have to learn to be content with the process itself, whatever the outcome.

Note: this post was first published on fortysevenseventyeight.wordpress.com.

Shake the Sleeping Baby

shipleal, ,

The last few weeks have been busy in Washington, D.C. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the Supreme Court issued some really fantastic and some not so great decisions, and I spent my spare time making table decorations for my best friend’s wedding. All of this wall-to-wall action got me thinking about the question of calling the question: how does one know when it’s the right time to make the big ask, intervene, or give a situation a gentle push.

During the wedding planning, my friends and I joked that asking certain questions of the bride-to-be was like shaking a sleeping baby—the plain dumbest idea ever. In other contexts, however, it feels like some babies need to be shaken in order to make good progress. I’m speaking metaphorically, of course, but upending the status quo does cause discomfort… and I suppose it could be said that ignorance is as akin to sleeping as social movements are to shaking someone awake.

The phrase “shit or get off the pot” comes to mind as a more direct way to describe this calling of the question. Depending on one’s line of work, my sense is that thoughts on calling the question vary widely, as does how the question itself is framed.

For example, many high profile LGBT rights advocates were actually pretty upset when the Prop 8 case was pushed toward the Supreme Court (by two straight dudes, by the way). Many thought it was not the time to press for a SCOTUS decision, and that waiting for the arch of the moral universe to bend just a little bit more toward justice was the most prudent course. In this instance, the naysayers and supporters alike within the LGBT policy community rallied behind the marriage fight to support the case they didn’t think could be won. In the end (though it’s really just the beginning), the SCOTUS denied standing in Prop 8 and we didn’t get the big ruling. It was a win, though, as was the work done by advocates who did not necessarily sign off on the effort in the first place.

Immigration advocates, on the other hand, seemed to be of one mind on the path forward in their fight for comprehensive immigration reform: the 2012 elections provided an opening for bipartisan action and if it didn’t happen early in President Obama’s second term, momentum would be lost. Of course, nothing is ever simple, and there were serious misgivings about how much could be compromised in order to get a bipartisan bill passed through the Senate. Family reunification was the goal for most of these advocates, but border security would be the high price to pay. Think moving the resources out of Afghanistan and straight to our southern border—earmarks to military contractors and fence builders. When it came down to the final bill that passed the Senate, calling the question became a matter of how much immigration advocates could stomach to get what they wanted.

Luckily, wedding table decorations are way less contentious than immigration reform or marriage equality. Weddings do, however, bring up a storm of emotions in both the bride and groom-to-be, as well as their families. I had the opportunity to view these emotional family dynamics as an outsider, and perhaps because of this, was able to see the full spectrum of interactions. Trying to figure out how best to support my friends and engage with their family members who needed a little steering got me thinking about human interactions, and how we decide when to plug in—when to challenge people, when to let things go, and how to approach a positive critique in the name of moving something forward rather than stagnating a relationship you care about.

When it comes down to it, many facets of life are tied up in these same issues. Whether it’s a wedding or a civil rights march, you have to decide when to push and how hard, when to lay off for the time being, and when to walk away. Perhaps this choice is the blessing and the curse of progressive organizing. There’s always a baby to shake, and there are always consequences of shitting on the pot.

Note: this post was first published on fortysevenseventyeight.wordpress.com.

Pass the Troll Doll

shipleal, , Leave a comment

Sometimes my current work life feels like a strange alternate universe to my feminism-focused past. I still work on women and gender issues, but because of where I’m doing the work these days, I’m almost completely surrounded by younger white dudes. That’s right. I work with a few women, but the vast majority of my closest colleagues are young men in their twenties. If you’d told me a decade ago that after working at six different women’s organizations and taking on two advanced degrees in women’s issues, I’d find myself loving an office full of young dudes… well, I would’ve laughed in your face. But here I am…

The most pleasant surprise about this dude-heavy environment is the growing role humor plays in my workday. Look elsewhere for a post comparing men and women’s senses of humor. Of course I laughed with fellow feminists working at women’s organizations. And I’m lucky to celebrate deep friendships with incredibly funny women. And men—most of my coworkers included—make great feminists. Funny ones, even.

But I have come to respect my guy coworkers’ senses of humor in a way that has distinguished this experience from past funny times. Perhaps because of how well we know each other via time spent, and how unprofessional political environments can be, my office culture is incredibly familiar. We all know everyone’s strengths and weaknesses and we’ve all tripped over our personal landmines through conversations where nothing is off limits. For the guys I work with, our office culture involves a lot of joking—often, they put each other down or “burn” each other through witty remarks meant to hit at the underbelly—extra points for wit, never points for only meanness.

We’ve also evolved a sort of collective game out of “trolling” each other. My best guess is that the term trolling comes from Internet comments sections—like an online version of fly fishing, where people post inflammatory comments to see if they can make the opposition bite—riling them into losing their cool and acting crazy. Urban Dictionary provides a pretty solid definition:

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn’t count as trolling; it’s just flaming, and isn’t funny. Spam isn’t trolling either; it pisses people off, but it’s lame.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.

In the context of my workplace, trollers need to know their victims and their soft spots—what will set them off. For example, my coworkers are not blind to the fact that I’m passionate about women’s issues and regularly loudly outspoken about sexist themes (fun for them, no?). Successful trolls of me have included:

Me: “I just saw a sign in the Capitol building that said ‘men at work’ – how ridiculously sexist is that! It’s 2013—where’s the ‘people at work’ sign? I’m calling to report this.”

Coworker: “Well, it kind of makes sense because all of the ‘women at work’ signs are in the kitchen.”

Me: “You know, typing can really hurt your hands.”

Coworker: “Yeah, I don’t know how you women do it all day.”

After each troll lobbed with a deadpanned tone, everyone looks to gauge a reaction and assess if the humor attempt was successful. True to definition, the best gotchas happen when you can’t quite figure out if your coworker really just turned into a despicable asshole. But that’s the definition of a good troll—and in my office, when it’s done right, we pass over a little troll doll (like this guy) as a temporary trophy for the quick wit and good collective laugh… until the next troll hits.

I think the reason this type of humor works for me in an essentially all-male environment is that the trolls have become very celebrated opportunities for my coworkers to show they understand larger issues of oppression, sexism, and homophobia. In order to troll me well, they can’t just make a “feminazi” reference and call it a day. Rather, the focus has to be on an issue, the joke has to be relatively smart, and the delivery has to be believable.

Thankfully, my younger dude coworkers do engage in intellectual conversations about feminist topics, though typically I’m initiating and managing these discussions. In a sense, our trolling culture is a way for these guys to acknowledge these issues themselves. They’re definitely not shimmying up to my desk to ask how I understand white male privilege at work in the current media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s possible 2016 presidential bid. But an effective troll can capture the essence of this issue with clarity and wit. Better still, these young men are initiating this thought process themselves and relying on a collective feminist lens in order for the troll to make sense to everyone—and thus succeed at being funny.

As in life, lines and wires are sometimes crossed. But for the most part, I’ve been deeply appreciative of this incredibly collegial environment where I am a lone lady. I’ve got to say, it’s funny to me that I’ve helped create a custom of rewarding young guys for making the wittiest joke about sexism by saying something completely sexist to my face. But I say, pass the troll doll.

Note: this post was first published on fortysevenseventyeight.wordpress.com.

Prioritize the Gap

shipleal, , , ,

Much has been made in the past week or so of claims that our President has fallen prey to a bit of gender and racial bias in staffing his inner circles. In case you missed it, this photo in the NY Times prompted a wave of news items and opinion pieces about whether Obama prefers to employ white dudes rather than living out the dream of a diverse and equal America he promoted relentlessly on the campaign trail.

I cheered on Dowd for calling out the hypocrisy of Democrats smugly condemning Republican “binders of women” when the Democratic Party is clearly not enjoying any post-feminist sunset. I also appreciated this update of an earlier study of professional women in Washington D.C. revealing how the “old boys club” is still in full swing in this town—if you ask women. Here’s one that squarely blames Obama for ignoring the “optics” of his woman problem because he’s got the policies right. And finally, one of my favorite blogs, Feministing.com, published a simple but straightforward post on Obama’s gender/race gap. That piece concludes:

Yes, there are too many white men in the White House, but there are too many white men everywhere you turn in politics.

Well said. Obama’s thoughtlessness about these decisions reveals what every woman working in politics and policy knows: it’s 2013 and still a man’s world. Women represent 18% of the House and 20% of the Senate.  We’re 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. We hold 20% of top positions across business, law, academia, and journalism. But we make up more than half the workforce and are better educated than men (more BAs, more MAs, and almost as many MBAs and law degrees). Despite this, qualified women aren’t getting equal pay, or the shot at promotions—including in Obama’s White House.

I believe this is what must change before anything else in American politics shifts. As progressives, we’re working with hope toward change for a wide swath of issues we all care about—education, poverty, violence, the environment, choice, etc. But if we realistically hope to change anything, we’re going to need to address the fact that our political system is filled with white dudes and that unless our government becomes more representative of America, it will continue churning out status quo policies (and hiring practices).

A couple of things. I like white dudes. There exist some really awesome white dudes. American white guys, even. But the knapsack of white privilege and patriarchy fits really comfortably and doesn’t require much critical thought from those who wear it. It’s not like I believe there’s a secret class in high school that all the white guys get pulled out of class for—like some racial/masculinity indoctrination curriculum where they don the knapsack and learn about pay inequity and beer commercials. That’s crazy.

Power is definitely a complicated concept, and you could spend decades thinking through Foucault, Gramsci, MacKinnon, and what many others have written about it. But I think we can agree that it’s generally something that doesn’t get transferred (to run with a loose concept) without a fight. Just ask any redistricting commission across the country.  Or elementary school kids playing with Legos. But nor is power something that is easily identified by the masses themselves.

So yes, we cut Obama too much slack on parity/equality issues within his administration because he’s a black man breaking a glass ceiling himself. But we’re also cutting him slack because we don’t see women and minority under-representation in American politics as a problem. Men don’t see it as a problem and women don’t see it as a problem. It’s the status quo and it’s the reality in our country—just like gun violence, crappy schools, smog-filled air, and institutionalized poverty. But unlike these other issues, under-representation is not something that progressives or feminists have honestly admitted is holding us back as a democracy.

To me, our first priority should be clearly seeing the gender and racial gap in American politics and committing ourselves to changing it.

Note: this post was first published on fortysevenseventyeight.wordpress.com.