Nope

[Content Note: Misogyny.]


This shit demonstrates complete ignorance of why intersectionality matters. You can't talk about income inequality, as but one of a million examples, and say gender doesn't matter, when the means by which income equality is enacted against women is different than how it is enacted against men.

And how it is enacted against women of color is different than how it is enacted against white women. And how it is enacted against trans women is different than how it is enacted against cis women. And black trans women vs. white trans women. And all the other identities that overlap with womanhood: Queer women, women with disabilities, fat women, etc.

Each of these groups are economically marginalized in very specific (and demonstrable) ways, explicitly on the basis of our particular identities.

And I will observe yet again that when control over our reproduction, or lack thereof, is one of the most important factors in determining women's (and trans men's) economic security, no one should be saying that gender isn't crucial to "the issues."

Saying that "gender is not what's important," as if gender is somehow separate from the issues about which Sanders is focusing, is antifeminist garbage that only serves to uphold kyriarchal privilege.

Sanders says he wants a revolution, but his campaign is tailoring a message to appeal to privilege. And you know what I think about that: If your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalizations, then you're not staging a revolution—you're staging a change in management.

Trickle-down economics doesn't work, and neither does trickle-down social justice.