I brought it up because I think it makes a good mirror for the hurdles Bernie Sanders has to face as a non-establishment candidate. I’m glad that we have passed the point of accepting sexism to feminists calling it out so it can be recognized. People are quick to point out sexism, even little remarks here and there when a criticism is not meant to have anything to do with her gender. People are not quick, however, to point out the advantages Hillary Clinton has that Bernie Sanders does not — that’s what this piece was about.
I agree that white women, especially wealthy white women, have little to complain about, given their position relative to Black men, and Black women especially. (Of course, I say that as a Latino man who is usually perceived to be white.) White women have oppressed both groups, including not only passively allowing Black men to be lynched on false rape accusations but actively lynching Black men as WKKK members. Admitting she faces tremendous prejudice was supposed to allow me to forget about that point — we both agree now let’s move on, since I have a foot in the door, to what I’m going to try and convince you of. That being said, a lot of criticism Clinton has received is decidedly gendered. There’s no getting away from that fact. She faces unfair attacks, and it’s foolish given that there’s so much substance to criticize without being sexist!
Bernie Sanders is not perfect, either. And people usually go for “he’s not a real democrat” (which is absurd given that he’s perfectly aligned with FDR and Hillary is a Neoliberal) or “what experience does he really have?” (also absurd because he’s been a mayor, in other words mini-mini-president, and has a positive reputation). But, as with Clinton, there are valid things on which to critique Bernie Sanders and they are not these.
