“The time for a female president is now!” I have heard the mantra a million times from friends I both respect and disagree with. “Now is the time for a woman to be President!” As a woman and a longtime feminist, I cringe every time I hear these misguided and far from progressive statements. The truth is that the time for a female president has always been. And I, too, had once supported and defended the idea of Hillary Clinton being my next President. However, with more careful research, applying all that I know about Feminism and woman’s issues, what I have learned about Hillary, as well as what I know about the Clintons, I have come to realize that a Hillary Clinton presidency will do far more to harm the many cross sections of American women, than it will to advance the cause of American women as a whole. Aside from any self-interest, as a woman who cares about other women, this is something I just can’t support.
I became a student of feminism back when feminism was still considered a bad word even amongst Democrats. “You will never get married!” I would be warned by friends, mainly comprised of college-educated registered Democrats. But a lot has changed since then. Although the patriarchy is still alive and well, I now see young female millennials wearing “feminist” merch, sexy male celebrities promoting feminism, and a presidential candidate who keeps reminding me that she is a woman. On one hand, the amount of support Hillary Clinton has been able to foster may be indicative of how much progress women have made. On the other hand, when feminism becomes a brand, it becomes possible for celebrities, politicians, and the like, to increase their own marketability by adapting the label of “feminist.” This label can then be used to cover over a multitude of abuses against women. A woman of privilege, who can gain access to the hundreds of millions of dollars it will cost to win the 2016 presidential election, can exploit this label while assuming her own role in the patriarchy.
In reality, we can’t smash the patriarchy while supporting the establishment. If Hillary is elected as the next American president, the presence of a female president may be, at best, initially inspiring. But if we still need access to hundreds of millions of dollars in order to run a viable presidential campaign, the vast majority of American women will still be no closer to political and economic equality than we are today. On the other hand, supporting the candidate who is fighting against the establishment, gives the rest of American women, who are not as privileged as the Clintons, a real fighting chance. By fighting alongside the candidate who, not just in words, but also in actions and affiliations, is most dedicated to making college education accessible, most dedicated to campaign finance reform, and most dedicated to fighting against corporate greed, we can begin to realize a world of new political opportunities that a Hillary Clinton presidency will not be offering us. Provided that we continue to fight with Senator Sanders, women can help shape a country in which we can advance in the political arena based on ability and empathy, rather than based on money and moral compromise. In the meanwhile, settling for Clinton now, because she is a woman, can set back the pace of progress for women for at least another four to eight years, if not longer.
And yet, many of my Hillary supporting friends, along with corporate owned so-called liberal media, continue to invoke claims of sexism each time Hillary Clinton is held accountable for her own actions. And yes, commenting on her cloths and hair is inexcusably sexist. But Hillary’s toughest progressive critics are not very much concerned with her clothes or hair. Rather, they are concerned with her ties to Wall Street, her support of war, her ties to private prison, her rejection of a single payer system, her rejection of a $15 minimum wage, and her rejection of Free State College tuition, among other issues. Crying sexism each time her less than progressive views are put into question, is especially insidious. It is meant to rile up an emotion that distracts even the most well-meaning of voters away from the real issues at hand. It aims to stir up fear of the enemy, thus clouding one’s ability to think critically on the matter of policy. It promotes the false idea that women, and the support women give, will be guided by emotions, rather than facts and research. But true progressives don’t vote based on fear and stereotypes. They vote based on hope. This is not the strategy of a progressive woman or a progressive campaign. Rather, it is the manipulative strategy most commonly used by conservatives.
The above being stated, there are some very important questions to be asked of Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and the media, as a fair response to their incessant cries of sexism. Are women who have been hurt and have had their families torn apart by an oppressive private prison system, one of the greatest human rights violations on the face of the planet, not also women? Are women who lost their life’s savings when the economy crashed, not also women? Are women who have illnesses they can’t afford to treat, not also women? And what of women who are caring for those who are sick? What of women who are struggling to raise a family while making less than a living wage? What of women who are struggling to pay for college? What of women who don’t have access to college? Are women who are soldiers, not also women? Are women who have had their lives and families torn apart by war, not also women? Are women who are amongst the first lines of victims of terrorism and Islamophobia, not also women? Will a Hillary Clinton Presidency really be good for women? And if your answer is still yes, who gets to fit into your definition of women? Or better yet, who gets excluded, and why?
How is supporting Hillary Clinton not a covert promotion of the oppressive patriarchal system that is already in place? Why is it sexist to stand up on behalf of all the many cross sections of women, domestic and abroad, who the Hillary camp has so conveniently and easily deleted from their own definition of women? And who are they to suggest that the many cross sections of Americans, who have been harmed and will continue to be harmed by another Clinton presidency, should suck it up, bite their lip, and not speak against Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman? Promoting the cause of the small sliver of very privileged women that the Clintons represent is not a feminist stance. Rather, it is an example of how a certain women of privilege can assume her own role in the patriarchy, while simultaneously implementing a strategy aimed at manipulating many of her own supporters to vote against their own best interest. Again, this is strategy used by republicans, not progressives.
But if the Clinton camp wants to talk about sexism, I think we should step the conversation up a notch. Let’s discuss the “Bernie Bro” media myth and nontroversy. Despite the media’s insistence that Bernie supporters are comprised of mainly white male “bros” who are supporting him on the basis of their sexism against Hillary, Bernie Sanders continues to be widely popular among woman and minority voters. So why does the Hillary camp keep telling us that we don’t exist? Is it not sexist to render invisible, the contributions of so many American women, to the political revolution that we so desperately need? And what of the infantilization of Hillary Clinton as a female candidate? Is a woman presidential candidate so delicate that she has to play the victim, and the so-called liberal media has to rush to her defense, each time she is held accountable for her own actions? Would the media accuse her critics of being meanie bullies if she were a man? Hillary is an adult and a leader who is accountable to the people she has hurt, and to the people who she stands to continue to hurt. Thus, she is not a victim each time progressive accountability comes knocking on her door. I, as an adult woman, find the infantilization of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, rather insulting to women. It is also inadvertently sexist against women.
Ultimately, we do a lot more to advance the cause of women when we vote based on policy rather than gender. As a woman and a feminist, I would have loved to support a female candidate for the upcoming Democratic primaries. However, I can’t support a woman based on the fact that she is a woman alone. But I can support a man if his plans are set to help advance the cause of woman. And by women, I mean all women - not just the woman of a very small and very privileged class. Bernie Sanders offers true hope for the various cross sections of American women, and for all Americans. Let’s vote based on hope, not fear! Let’s continue the fight against the establishment! Feminists, let’s feel the Bern! #feelthebern #Bernie2016 #notmeus #rockthevote