And no, it is not enough to “learn to view women complexly” to find Hillary Clinton likable.
You also have to accept that Not Everybody is corrupted by money from corporations, bankers and vile regimes, and not everyone who changes their positions is duplicitous, and it is possible to “evolve” back and forth between opposing points of view, and supporting every war option doesn’t make one a war-monger, and just because sneaky people fool someone doesn’t mean they aren’t smart enough to be President, and compulsively saying weird transparent falsehoods doesn’t make one dishonest, and when everyone who “represents” you also supports bad policies like the TPP it doesn’t mean that you do too, and scheming to hide your communications from public scrutiny doesn’t mean you have anything to hide, and anyway all critics are right-wingers or elitists or white working class racists.
Jesus. I fully agree that American men have a huge (legacy) problem respecting women and treating them as equals. But, as a progressive who is 100% open to critical self-reflection and one who appreciates and respects feminist ideas and the women in my life and listens to them, I am beyond tired of being brow-beaten into supporting Clinton. All through the primaries I (and Bernie supporters) were told we were sexist, ‘bros’, etc. I am still routinely labeled a sexist by people who know absolutely nothing about me except that I don’t think Clinton is a good candidate. The title of this piece is extremely patronizing.
Edit:[quote=“Mindysan33, post:258, topic:85424, full:true”]
How you feel doesn’t mean there isn’t some real misogyny thrown her way, though. It’s not an either/or thing. Point that out doesn’t negate your views of Clinton or make them illegitimate. But ignoring things like misogyny (or in the case of Obama when he was running, racism) doesn’t make it go away, it just allows it to fester…
[/quote]
I am not questioning this. I am questioning the need to constantly question whether fellow D’s are just not enthusiastic enough about Clinton because they must be sexist. It’s become a blanket deflection for any real discussion about a very flawed candidate with some serious problems.
Did you read it? It really doesn’t come into conflict with you not liking HRC because she’s not a good candidate. Rather it’s about how latent sexism biases public discourse and rhetoric in politics. (I’m not sure how many times this needs to be repeated)
No, I didn’t, and won’t. With a title like that I don’t need to. This is a pretty simple issue for me. I know America is sexist, racist, and backwards in pretty much every possible way.
I liked Sanders. I voted for him. But he came off like my geriatric uncle who still talks about his days with the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1934. No “presidential bearing” whatsoever.
That’s a shame, in part because it’s the specifics that drive meaningful discourse, and it’s important as it does effect rhetoric in the highest office. You may not personally like the exemplar, but that’s besides the point. Just saying “oh, I know the system is f**ked up, I understand the issue completely” doesn’t show you much of value to add, especially if you use the title alone to segue into how actually you are the victim here. It also wouldn’t help your case if you’re trying to convince others you’re not being inadvertently misogynist. I’m not saying you are btw, but you’re falling into that trap.
They should add a subtitle to this piece: “Note: likability is not the same as liking a candidate, and this piece does not mean to argue that disliking HRC implies you are sexist.”
Same. I voted for him in the primaries and actively supported him, and I still think he’s the better candidate, but I don’t really like him as a person.
One thing that struck me about the article is how forgivable we can be toward a candidate because of empathy or expectation (or the converse). Does this effect the outcome? Well, I don’t have enough data here to really feel like I can make a good case, but I do believe that a lot of people vote with their gut (you know, reasons).
It’s neither here nor there, but I found him refreshingly candid, honest, and principled. Just thinking of this now … but the presidency does not require perfection, otherwise nobody would be fit for the job. I do think it requires someone who can be trusted to do the things most would consider the honest, just, and moral thing to do.
Sure - but building coalitions don’t solely depend on “likability”. That can help, but that’s less important than competence even in coalition building. A likeable doofus doing terribly incompetent things gets no one new on board.
Can you pin down what this means, exactly? What is presidential bearing and does it trump (hahahahahaha!!! GET IT!!!) policy proposals and the ability to get things done?
I’m not trying to challenge your view on Sanders, just trying to figure out why these sort of fuzzy concepts (like likability, even) have to do with electing a president.
