This is nothing new. After all, how often are we told to fight the U.S. attitudes towards Muslims, but to ignore the fact that many Muslim-dominated countries impose some of the most misogynist laws in the modern world? We are told to fight the Western imperialism and exploitation aimed at Africa, but to ignore FGM. We are told to fight for the rights of Latin American immigrants, but to ignore the machismo and misogyny of traditional Catholic societies. We are told to fight against racial profiling of black and Latino men in the U.S., but to ignore the “anger” expressed in popular rap lyrics. That “anger,” of course, is often aimed at women–you know, hos and bitches. We are told taht is it an issue of “human rights” if a man is tortured, but one of “culture” if a woman is.
What I want to know is why we can’t attack both sides of those issues. Why are we supposed to take up only those issues identified by male-dominated “progressive” organizations as valid?

I voted McKinney-Clemente this year. I hear all the celebrating over the first Black male president tonight. How many of those people even knew that a Black woman was running? How many cared?

McKinney’s is such an important perspective to bring to the debate — it’s a shame that the institutional sexism and racism among progressives is keeping people like her out. Barack and Hillary should not have the monopoly on what a non-white-male candidacy means! We need voices like McKinney’s to reclaim what it means to have a woman candidate, especially when gender is used as a wedge issue to reinforce racism, etc.

I won’t go into detail but believe the story of McKinney’s candidacy is rife with internal sexist and racist biases in the alternative parties. Why did certain Green Party leaders hold a place open for Nader even though he had declined to run with them? Why aren’t prominent names like Nader helping build someone like McKinney up? Is that the kind of leadership that contributes to movement-building?

When Nader ran in 2004, I supported his candidacy but was disappointed that his position on “women’s issues” was an afterthought, a statement taken from NOW. Which was completely liberal, “rights” focused — even though the most important thing about Nader’s political positions is when he moves beyond “rights” and “equal opportunity” in the case of so many other issues, to draw our attention to problems of actual access, the need for economic redistribution around human needs. I.e. true universal healthcare.

So when will we have a party platform that includes universal reproductive healthcare, not the mere “right” to choose? Or real welfare, not just the “right” to sue for work and equal pay? Etc. It’s just a beginning.