Thread by @Delafina777

It would be really nice if we could talk about the problems with media coverage of Warren without people insisting on changing the conversation to the problems with Warren. The latter is a valid conversation! But conflating the two obscures a double standard.

And even if you don't like Warren, or have (valid!) concerns about her policies, her handling of criticism, etc. we need to have a conversation about how the media treats female candidates (as a group) differently without making it a referendum on the individual candidates.

Because the individual behavior of a single member of a marginalized group shouldn't be used to justify treating the entire group differently from a privileged group.

And how people treat a member of a marginalized group who's doing stuff they find objectionable is a pretty good litmus test for what they really think about that group in general.

E.g. Back in the Bush days, when I was in college, I thought Ann Coulter was advocating for things that made her about as reprehensible as a human being can get. So did most of my friends. And a number of them liked to call her things like a "stupid slut."

At the time I didn't have the experience to parse why that made me so uncomfortable, but now I certainly do: "slut" is a gendered slur, and the things that make Ann Coulter so objectionable have nothing to do with her sex life.

So when my friends were using that term for her, fundamentally it wasn't about any of the horrible things she was saying or doing: it was about her being a woman. And it was suggesting that somehow her being a horrible person, and her being a woman who has sex, were the same.

Which meant that we actually weren't having real discussions about WHY what she was saying was so bad, because her femaleness kept getting centered, and we couldn't have discussions about how that was sexist, because she was a horrible person.

I don't think Warren's a horrible person, obviously. But I do think she and Clinton are both litmus tests, because there are a lot of people who don't like them--for both completely valid reasons, and terrible reasons.

So whenever I see someone say, "she's putting out detailed policy proposals, but all the media can do is talk about Buttigieg petting a dog," and the responses are, "but she used to be a Republican!" "but her position on sex workers!" etc. it's frustrating.

Because those are valid criticisms of Warren, and conversations we should have. HOWEVER. Do you really believe those are the reasons the media's covering her differently from Buttigieg or Beto or Bernie? I sure as hell don't.