Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
Posts: 3,372
|
|
« on: August 21, 2016, 04:00:51 PM » |
|
Sexism would be a large part of it. It is impossible to look at her as a candidate or form an opinion of her without looking through the lens of—and having our opinions of her conditioned by—gender. I garauntee her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be way, way better if she was a man. Her ambition is socially threatening, and the large target that has always been on her back would not have been there if she hadn't entered the man's world of public policy in the 1990s.
Her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be much worse if she were a man.
No. It all started because she chose to be different kind of First Lady, it's how the GOP has so effectively tarnished her reputation.
^^ thank you. She changed the "traditional" norms of a First Lady, and conservatives don't approve of anyone who doesn't adhere to their narrow-minded gender roles and what's "appropriate" for a woman. Had she just been a good girl and kept her nose out of the men's business of policy and politics and tended to more ladylike matters such as picking new linens for the curtains or redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom, her "trustworthiness" and "likability" wouldn't be an issue today. Conservatives (mostly males) are threatened by strong, intelligent, powerful women, and likely even more threatened when this said women is a strong liberal/progressive, so yes, they've been able to throw the kitchen sink at her by attacking her ambition, her marriage and her family, her physical appearance (her hair, her pantsuits), and yet she's still standing and is 99.99 percent likely to become President. Through all their lies, smear campaigns, and yes, the "vast right-wing conspiracies," Republicans have not been able to destroy Hillary Clinton, and it doesn't look like they're going to be able to do so in a few months, either.
Ignored.
|