It’s Not Sexist, It’s Just Politics

By Brittany G.

For so long, society and the feminist movement insist we, as women, need an extra boost to succeed and special days commemorating our gender. Yet, if women are, in fact, as strong as men, why is society dead-set on providing women with step stools? It’s time that these step stools, so-to-speak, that the Left is so insistent on placing under women are erased from every aspect of our lives. We do not need them. Running for office is a platform where men and women running against each other should be based on equality, without step stools. Oftentimes, supporters of female candidates criticize other voters who do not endorse the candidate, labeling the voter immediately as “sexist.” There is something intrinsically insulting and demeaning about discrediting a woman’s opinion and labeling her as sexist for not endorsing a specific woman in politics. Women wish to be treated as equals— until someone disagrees with them. It has nothing to do with a candidate’s gender and everything to do with the policies and stances on issues they stand for. 

Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of a woman who has an extensive political resume and several scandals and issues regarding her policy platforms. In the aftermath of 2016, multiple explanations began to circulate, attempting to make sense of Hillary Clinton’s loss. From an ineffective social media campaign, to unreliable polling, to a critical lack of support in the rust belt, there were several problems with Clinton’s campaign. Yet, the resounding explanation, as peddled by the Left-leaning media, and in her book “What Happened” was that Clinton lost because America just “wasn’t ready” for a female president. I beg to differ.

To me, her involvement in scandal and policy suggestions outweigh her accomplishments. As a strong supporter of our armed forces, her oversights regarding Benghazi were a severe point of contention for me in the 2016 election. All of the other countries pulled their embassies, but she felt it was necessary to remain even after receiving credible threats. Another point of contention I have with Secretary Clinton is her use of a private server housing government emails. Of course, everyone can have a personal email account but rarely is it appropriate to use your personal account for professional communications— especially when you’re the Secretary of State. The private server is not under the purview of government oversight. Not to mention the fact she was an emblem of the establishment. She represented years of factory politicians who made decisions that allowed corporations to take jobs out of this country with zero repercussions. In an election with serious populist undertones, from the election of Donald Trump to the primary battle with Bernie Sanders, an establishment candidate will naturally face an uphill battle. Lastly, as much as Hillary Clinton tries to convince us she is a part of the “future,” she has solidified herself as a figure of the past. Being a woman does not change her history of policies or her interpretation of the US’ government’s role domestically and abroad. Her gender does not absolve her of her many years in “the swamp” of institutional politics. It wasn’t, and it still isn’t sexist to suggest she isn’t right for the job— it’s just politics. 

The focus on gender continues today, with even more intensity than in 2016. Galvanized by a slew of progressive 2018 female candidates, the strategy guaranteed Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s VP nominee, while it held no ground in the primary itself. Harris, a relatively new face in national politics to a majority of the public, is again, another face of the establishment. The “typical politician” role has become so redundant in politics that some women think acting that way is how they’ll win. Men do the same thing. But it continues to be proven wrong. Donald Trump did not win because he was the most likable person or spewed false promises. President Trump won because he did not exemplify the very idea of what America has grown tired of— the straight-laced, perfect, “knows exactly what to say”, politician. All of those descriptions fit Kamala Harris. She reminds me of Hillary, as she pretends to be likable while relying solely on playing her race and gender cards to take her to the finish line. Just because she’s a woman does not mean that she needs to automatically be likable, and for the most part, voters agree. In theory, she should have swept the primaries, she’s everything the Democrats want, but she didn’t. Why? Because even though she fit the bill, voters could see through the veneer to a politician who wasn’t new and refreshing, but a vestige of an establishment past attempting to rebrand around her image as a woman.

As a woman, I find these identity politics offensive and frustrating. What makes someone unique is not their gender, but their ideas and their methods for enacting said actions. If we genuinely want to be treated as equals, we should stop allowing the identity “woman” as a qualifier for office. Senator Harris does not embody what I want for the future of America. That opinion has nothing to do with her immutable characteristics and everything to do with her politics. She is an entitled California liberal with conflicting opinions and a political ideology rooted in opportunism, rather than ideology or pragmatism. She favored the incarceration of prisoners with the “three strikes you’re out” penalty invoked in California and now demands to “defund the police” to appeal to voters. Just because Alyssa Milano claims that it’s sexist to say that Kamala was picked because she is a black woman doesn’t mean that it’s sexist not to agree with her politics.

Finally, we should take a look at Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Her name alone ignites irritation and argument among many people, not just Republicans. Instead of coming across as the poster for “progressive America,” she comes across as loud, annoying, and unrealistic. Her “Green New Deal” was shot down not just by the right but also by members of her party in Congress because of her outlandish ideas to create jobs in high paying “green” energy fields. She paints herself as one of the people, having worked as a bartender and “only gone to Boston University” as if it is not an expensive institution. However, AOC is merely feeding into the political game; she is so quick to denounce. She wants to hike up national income taxes, claims the world will end in 12 years, and calls for more money to be printed (because that is apparently how we solve poverty now). She is a flat out socialist, and that may be the only reason you need to dislike her, but there’s more. Being the “shady politician” is a game as old as the republic. Her Chief of Staff has been accused of diverting over one million dollars in donations from supporters to funds for a company registered under his name. She claims to be for the people but is just as out of touch with reality as many of her peers. Ben Shapiro challenged her to a debate, and she equated it to catcalling. Just because a man threatened your opinions does not make it catcalling— that alone harms the idea that men and women cannot have discourse because it is “sexist” for a man to challenge a woman’s beliefs.

The hypocrisy of the sexism argument comes to a head in the Left’s treatment of women on the other side of the aisle. The logic of sexism being the true root of disagreement with female politicians magically disappears when talking about Republicans. Sarah Palin was mercilessly slandered in 2008, never receiving leniency because of her gender. Criticisms of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany by the Left are never “sexist” but grounded in disagreements over political issues. More women hold political office than ever before, with many women and especially minority women in these positions. What kind of example does it set for equality, if a voter is to hold men and women candidates to different standards? Or to call criticism of left-leaning women “sexist” and then turn around and criticize women on the Right with impunity. There is a clear double standard. Using identity politics to “move women forward” and placing quotas in our systems to “get women to the top” is counterproductive. We are women— we can do anything we set our minds to and we don’t need to ride on our “woman-ness,” but instead on the merit of our ideas.

This politicization of gender needs to be called out for what it is: a political machination. Women do not have to support a woman running for office just because she is a woman. That notion alone is bigoted and sexist! Instead, as educated women, we support and endorse those who best represent our ideals and beliefs, and that can be anyone from either gender to race. As long as a candidate best represents the American dream and how to fulfill it during their term, while staying close to the beliefs I stand upon, they have my vote!