Thread by @tressiemcphd

This week in the newsletter, I wrap up a three week series on what the hell is Sinema wearing. We covered speech acts, performance, pinkwashing, fitness morality, racism, and social class. Power is everyday.

This week’s issue — like previous issues — features a sociologist. This time it is Ashley Mears. The issue has one of the sickest sociological burns I have ever heard. Fave when you find it.

The point, for those who insist on an explanation, is that we can model fair critique of powerful women and that power’s performance is part of courting legitimacy for political strategy. Also, because I had fun. YMMV.

I have some other things planned for the next weeks in the newsletter. But, I have a LOT of -- shall we say -- feedback to the Sinema trilogy. I'll put some of that response here so that I can get back to work.

It is weird to think that presentation isn't politics. There is no other word for it except weird. I checked.

Modern politics is beholden to the same attention economy as all other social institutions. Sinema uses her ability to attract attention to leverage her position within the Party, which in turn shapes her ability to challenge the Party's platform. These are not separate issues.

Another issue: coding for social class in presentation and performance covers for a lot of bad politics. Ill-fitted suits on men, "aw shucks" country boy allusions from Ivy-league elites, a cowboy hat here, a radical lapel pin there.

Part of being serious about the politics being sold is to not take the politicians' word for their brand. That is true even for women. It can be done without denigrating the person and in an attention economy we had better learn how to do that.

Any feminism that would ask you not to do any of these things, is just patriarchy coding for "inclusion".

Blanket responses to messages:

1. I assure you I am not jealous of Sinema. I am already Black.

2. You can "do" this kind of analysis of anyone and Sinema was a timely model with very overt codes, which is easier for new theorists to parse. It was not anymore personal that Sinema's politics are personal for millions of people.

3. Manchin also has a performance, yes. I agree that someone should write it. Maybe that person is you.

4. "She is just [insert insult]" violates basic rule of analysis -- always give your subject the full benefit of every doubt. Not because it helps them but because it helps you. Punditry slams for the sake of slamming.

5. "Fashion is stupid and you are stupid for mentioning it." Just please stop hating women out loud where we can hear you. /fini