We’ve spent a long time trying to tell each other that skin colour, sex (or gender) don’t matter in vast areas of life. Including who governs. Apparently this is incorrect:
Sanders is the most progressive and revolutionary candidate on the merits, these folks argue, so the fact that Warren is a woman – and similarly progressive – can’t matter. The insistence that an elderly white man’s socialist revolution will better address my 21st-century black feminist gender concerns is textbook white liberal paternalism. How will Sanders white masculinity affect and inform how he governs? This is a question that we should get to ask. Being progressive doesn’t mean that one’s race or gender ceases to matter in one’s leadership style and prerogatives, especially not in a world where gender and race are always presumed to matter for how women and people of color will govern.
Oh, so gender (or sex) and skin colour do matter when governing. Therefore we should be taking both into account when we elect someone.
So, far I’ve just repeated what she’s said. Not changed it at all.
But what’s the implication of that? That the way birds and melanies* will govern is different precisely because they are birds and melanies. Which does mean that we’re all now allowed to not vote for them, to deliberately vote against them even, on the grounds that we don;t want to be governed the way that birds and melanies would.
Which isn’t what she wants to say at all, I’m sure, even as she is saying don;t vote for Bernie ‘cuz he’s white and a man.
*Those endowed with the superpower of extra melanin