The Baltimore Sun published an op-ed earlier this week discussing the political preferences of young women. Specifically, why we're so wrong about everything.
The author of the piece, Barbara A. Res, states that "young women just don't get it." What exactly don't we get? We don't get why it's so desperately important to have a woman - ANY woman - become President of the United States.
Ms. Res is yet another example of a baby-boomer feminist who thinks people in this generation should stop thinking for themselves and just do what she wants, dammit. She and others like her worked hard to build up women's rights to the point that we're even considering putting a woman in the oval office. And there's only one woman running right now, so we all just need to support Hillary because vaginas, or something.
On behalf of all Millennials, I would like to thank the feminists of days gone by for getting us to this point. It's very nice to live in a country where, for the most part, women are genuinely treated as equals to men. And we wouldn't be at this point in our society if not for all the hard work and dedication of countless women and men over the past 100+ years.
Thank you.
But I'll be damned if I'm voting for Hillary.
You see, Ms. Res, along with all that equality and liberation, you (not you personally, but your generation) also taught us to see women as people just as much as men. And that means scrutinizing female political candidates in the same way we do male candidates.
Alright, I will concede that we do probably still hold female candidates to a higher standard than male candidates. A female adulterer probably wouldn't be forgiven as quickly as a male adulterer. A woman might need to think a bit longer about how her hair and her clothes look, because if either is too "off" the media absolutely will be all over that shit, shallow as it may be. So yeah, we've still got some work to do in that arena.
But Hillary's not losing the 35-and-under female voters because of her fashion choices. Frankly, we're not even paying attention to what she's wearing. We're paying attention to what she's doing and saying. And it's not looking good.
Her actions show that she's dishonest, arrogant, entitled, untrustworthy, and out of touch. Yes, many of us are still talking about the email thing, because it's emblematic of her entire personality. We're talking about her insane ideas about encryption (all the candidates are pretty much equally guilty of this). We're talking about her policies and how we don't agree with them.
We don't want her.
"Women's issues were major in the 1970s too. And that was a real revolution. One that is not won yet. Still, young women must think it's over. Otherwise, why wouldn't they support Hillary? There's no shame in solidarity. Look at the black vote, look at ethnic votes. Voters support their own. Given the choice, women should support an equally competent woman over a man — yes, because she is a woman. Here we have a proven, more qualified and (sorry, Bernie) younger female candidate, and yet we have young women supporting Bernie. How can this be?
Because young women just don't get it."
That's nice. Assuming Hillary were an equally good candidate and there were no substantial points on which they diverged, maybe I would agree that she would then be a preferable candidate. What would be the point of that race, though? What's the likelihood of having two candidates running against one another who agree on every important point? It's not going to happen. Voters should vote on substance, not genitalia.
I don't think black people should be voting for a black person just because they're black, either. That's a horrible analogy if you're trying to win us over. No, there is no shame in solidarity, but there is shame in always running with the crowd for its own sake.
Also, way to be ageist, there. Congrats on that.
"I shake my head and ask myself, why can't they just go with Hillary because she is a woman?"
Because we're better than that.
The author of the piece, Barbara A. Res, states that "young women just don't get it." What exactly don't we get? We don't get why it's so desperately important to have a woman - ANY woman - become President of the United States.
Ms. Res is yet another example of a baby-boomer feminist who thinks people in this generation should stop thinking for themselves and just do what she wants, dammit. She and others like her worked hard to build up women's rights to the point that we're even considering putting a woman in the oval office. And there's only one woman running right now, so we all just need to support Hillary because vaginas, or something.
On behalf of all Millennials, I would like to thank the feminists of days gone by for getting us to this point. It's very nice to live in a country where, for the most part, women are genuinely treated as equals to men. And we wouldn't be at this point in our society if not for all the hard work and dedication of countless women and men over the past 100+ years.
Thank you.
But I'll be damned if I'm voting for Hillary.
You see, Ms. Res, along with all that equality and liberation, you (not you personally, but your generation) also taught us to see women as people just as much as men. And that means scrutinizing female political candidates in the same way we do male candidates.
Alright, I will concede that we do probably still hold female candidates to a higher standard than male candidates. A female adulterer probably wouldn't be forgiven as quickly as a male adulterer. A woman might need to think a bit longer about how her hair and her clothes look, because if either is too "off" the media absolutely will be all over that shit, shallow as it may be. So yeah, we've still got some work to do in that arena.
But Hillary's not losing the 35-and-under female voters because of her fashion choices. Frankly, we're not even paying attention to what she's wearing. We're paying attention to what she's doing and saying. And it's not looking good.
Her actions show that she's dishonest, arrogant, entitled, untrustworthy, and out of touch. Yes, many of us are still talking about the email thing, because it's emblematic of her entire personality. We're talking about her insane ideas about encryption (all the candidates are pretty much equally guilty of this). We're talking about her policies and how we don't agree with them.
We don't want her.
"Women's issues were major in the 1970s too. And that was a real revolution. One that is not won yet. Still, young women must think it's over. Otherwise, why wouldn't they support Hillary? There's no shame in solidarity. Look at the black vote, look at ethnic votes. Voters support their own. Given the choice, women should support an equally competent woman over a man — yes, because she is a woman. Here we have a proven, more qualified and (sorry, Bernie) younger female candidate, and yet we have young women supporting Bernie. How can this be?
Because young women just don't get it."
That's nice. Assuming Hillary were an equally good candidate and there were no substantial points on which they diverged, maybe I would agree that she would then be a preferable candidate. What would be the point of that race, though? What's the likelihood of having two candidates running against one another who agree on every important point? It's not going to happen. Voters should vote on substance, not genitalia.
I don't think black people should be voting for a black person just because they're black, either. That's a horrible analogy if you're trying to win us over. No, there is no shame in solidarity, but there is shame in always running with the crowd for its own sake.
Also, way to be ageist, there. Congrats on that.
"I shake my head and ask myself, why can't they just go with Hillary because she is a woman?"
Because we're better than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment