These are the women who don’t see color and just came here to do their craft thing and why does everything have to be about politics?
Here are there I’m seeing surprise expressed at the white women players in storming the capitol.
I want to talk about that because I’m not surprised.
I’m not surprised because as a fiber artist I’ve seen these women for DECADES.
Thread.
These are the women who don’t see color and just came here to do their craft thing and why does everything have to be about politics?
These are the women who, along with their hovering spouses, have open carried in my handspinning classroom.
These are the women who post reviews on Amazon saying “she’s a racist who banned me because I’m white.”
These are the WHITE WOMEN who say “stop the hate! This is supposed to be about the knitting.” Or spinning or weaving or whatever.
These are the women I worry about when they follow me into a bathroom at a hotel or fairground.
Stop thinking you can be apolitical in fiber arts or “white women’s hobbies.”
You can’t. “Not being political” IS political.
/end
I still see colleagues saying it’s important to maintain the appearance of neutrality.
I want you to know: when that’s your priority, it tells me you actually picked a side, and which one, and it’s not the one I picked.
More from Politics
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
