@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I have supported Elizabeth Warren from the beginning. I like her intelligence, and her pragmatism. Her "I have a plan for that" theme works for me. I liked that her focus was on economics... I don't always agree with her stances, but I respect her judgment. That is exactly what I am looking for in a president.
I am afraid she screwed all of that up. When her campaign started to stumble (and many ultimately successful campaigns stumble) she grabbed for the easy way out, the cheapest fix in the Democratic political playbook.
Warrens's spat with Bernie Sanders about what he allegedly said about women was an awful mistake on her part. Warren wins when she is talking about economic policy and pragmatic, progressive solutions. Warren doesn't win when she is talking about gender, nor should she. My vote goes for the person who I believe will make the best candidate (i.e. beating Trump) and the best president. I don't vote blindly for the woman candidate. Her gender is irrelevant.
I fear that her playing this card so early might disqualify her campaign. If she wins the nomination this way, she comes out with a big disadvantage facing Trump.
Trump will run against Democratic identity politics. If that is what this election is about, he will likely win.
Ironically you are doing the classical thing that feminists accuse non-feminist socialists of doing, which is to seek economic equality without regards to forms of inequality that occur between marginalized and dominant groups, such as homo/hetero, white/non-white, and men/women.
In other words, you're basically saying, "yes, I like her focus on expanding economic inclusion, but if men take the lion's share and women continue to get marginalized and thus a smaller piece of the pie, secondary status/roles, etc. that issue isn't as important as you and other men gaining equality with richer men.
I agree with you that identity politics gets old, as does collective comparisons of groups in terms of (in)equality, but if you are seeking equality with richer people and those people are men and you are male, then it would be a problem if you don't acknowledge that other inequality in addition to the one you want to be the focus.
Now there are traditionally women's issues that are important not because of collective group identity rivalry for equality but because they just traditionally burden women more and/or differently than men, such as childcare, reproductive issues, sexist bias, cultural marginalization of things deemed feminine, etc.
Anyway, I suggest that if you have a problem with a candidate discussing women's issues, don't call it "playing a card," but rather focus on what it is about their gender focus you dislike. Don't dismiss everything feminism has studied and all issues of interest to women more so than men by calling it "playing the woman card."
Finally, realize that many if not all issues that are considered 'women's issues' also affect men in one way or another, directly and/or indirectly. So by criticizing Warren 'playing the woman card,' you are simultaneously marginalizing men who deal with similar issues to women, e.g. because they are single fathers or they are marginalized for being less masculine than stereotypically masculine men, etc.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace