So, like an animated corpse that just won't die, the Hillbots are at it again in playing the sexist card in their own little corners of social media. They're blaming Clinton's defeat on "sexism" and saying women need to "grieve" for her loss. Now, as you know, I've been way more giddy than I should at Clinton's loss, but it's only because I feel the democratic party has been treating me like crap all year and now the chickens have come home to roost. But anyway, despite this I kind of see where they're coming from. A woman president just got beaten by someone who may very well be a serial sex offender who gropes women. That's kind of a low blow. However, I don't necessarily think sexism is at work here, it's more a backlash against the sanctimonius form of feminism that controlled the democratic party this year.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Feminism at its core is not bad, and it has a place in progressive politics, and it SHOULD have a place in progressive politics. HOWEVER, the particular brand used this election was very toxic and should never have the spotlight again. This election, the hardcore feminist Clinton supporters put the fact that Clinton was a woman over all other concerns. As if we should elect her just because she was a woman. Sarah Palin is a woman, does that mean you would elect her? If not, then you kind of already got to the core of the problem.
I want a good president. Someone who speaks for me, and cares about issues I care about. Clinton was a neoliberal who ignored my economic needs and my ideology and even worse told my camp to sit down, shut up, and take what they wanna give us in effect. I'm not opposed to a woman president. I even voted for one this election. It wasn't the woman you wanted me to vote for, but unless Jill Stein is secretly a man, I definitely supported a woman. And there are women in the democratic party I would happily support. If Elizabeth Warren ran in 2020, I would most likely support her, since she's my second favorite potential candidate behind Sanders. I'd also be possibly open to Tulsi Gabbard, who supported Sanders this election, although I'd need to know more of her exact politics.
Listen, people need to get off their sanctimonious high horses about how everyone who doesn't like Clinton is a sexist, because it's not true. Believe it or not, even though I don't agree with you on Clinton, I'm actually on your side. That doesn't mean I'll put your concerns over mine in 100% of situations in which they conflict, which seems to be what these people seem to expect from me.
Look, it's pretty clear after this election that feminism needs a rebranding. The concept is good. It really is. I'm totally sympathetic to it. But honestly, we need to stop branding everyone who thinks differently from you as sexist. It's very offputting and is arguably one of the reasons Clinton lost. Those white working class people in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania don't give a darn about what our president is. The concept of a woman president is lost on them if they don't have a job, if they can't put food on the table, if there aren't proper safety nets in place to sustain them. They're not necessarily sexist (some are but that's besides the point). They just want to...you know...have money to live on. Something they currently don't. It isn't sexist to be poor and refuse to vote for a candidate who does nothing to help you in that regard. It really isn't. And if it is, then maybe your definition of what a sexist is, is the problem.
I don't care how experienced Hillary is. I don't care what's going on below the belt there. I just want a decent president who acts on issues I care about. Donald Trump certainly isn't that person, but neither is Clinton. Hence why I voted third party. That doesn't mean I'm sexist, it means I'm voting in lines with my own best interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment