Hillary Clinton and the Phoniness of Identity Politics
Giorgia Meloni is set to become Italy’s first female prime minister, and Hillary Clinton thinks that this a good thing for women.
when asked about the Italian political scene, Clinton said that "the election of the first woman prime minister in a country always represents a break with the past, and that is certainly a good thing."
Just in case anyone was under any illusions that Hillary simply misspoke, she doubled-down on that statement in a later interview.
Clinton reiterated her same message in an interview clip to be released by Sky's tg24 on Friday night, saying that a win by Meloni would "open doors" for other women even while acknowledging the far-right candidate would still have to be judged by her policies and performance.
According to Broder:
Prefacing her comments on Meloni saying she "doesn't know much about her," Clinton said, "every time a woman is elected to head of state or government, that is a step forward. Then that woman, like a man, has to be judged, on what she stands for, on what she does." There have to be "two parts to the analysis" for though a woman premier would "open doors, that's not the end of the story."
This race/gender tokenism view of how the world works only makes sense when you are viewing the world from an already very high peak. For the vast majority of women in Italy, the election of Meloni will probably be a disaster.
The Brothers of Italy’s direct forebears, the neofascist Italian Social Movement, was formed by supporters of Il Duce after World War II.
The idea that a woman leader “opens doors” for other women, as Clinton suggested, is of course laughable. That’s especially true when that leader is a fascist keen to stop abortions and do away with employment quotas that favor women — quite literally shuttering women in the nuclear home — while locking out immigrant women from Italy’s body politic all together.
The Identity Politics of Hillary Clinton is very popular among the ruling elites, because it gives the appearance of progress without any actual progress.
For instance, consider this headline about the CIA by NBC.
It's a wonderful, progressive thing that the CIA is now run by women. Let's just ignore the fact that Gina Haspel was known as "Bloody Gina" because she ran the torture program, and led the effort to cover up it's war crimes, under President Bush.
Hurrah for women! After all, isn't it better to have women doing the torturing than men?
The CIA's highest level positions are now all held by women — another stride towards progress pic.twitter.com/Sz4rDw4U7m
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 9, 2019
Or we can consider this headline from ABC.
Who better to run our Military-Industrial Complex and be our leading Merchants of Death than women?
They call on well-worn gender stereotypes to assert that women have something special to offer because of their unique talent at negotiating, their fierce protectiveness as mothers, and their “different perspective” on problem solving.
That's the problem. They don't have "different perspectives". If they did then this would actually matter. They have the perspectives of the ruling class, and that's a much more powerful identity than race or gender.
Why should some impoverished woman in the middle east care if the company that manufactured the bomb that killed her whole family was run by a woman or a man?