By Mona

December 5, 2017, 12:09 pm

 

Photo credit: National Review

The fact that 53 percent of white women voters cast their votes for Donald Trump as opposed to Hillary Clinton is still an enigma. Women make up half the population, live longer than men, and are opinion leaders in their households. With the support of women, Hillary would have been elected president, but one can only speculate. I do not speak on behalf of white women, however, I have a theory that many of you may find appalling, controversial, indecent, but perhaps plausible.

Am I the only one who noticed that, as the election progressed, Hillary Clinton seemed to become (dare I say it) asexual? It didn’t feel like I had the profound opportunity to elect the first woman president. It felt like the same old, and now stale, democratic candidate that I’d seen for my entire life.  My tipping point was when she began dressing like Kim Jong- un. As Bill’s wife, I saw a woman. As Chelsea’s mom, I saw a woman. But as a candidate running for president, I saw an asexual being.

I’m sure many of you are churning in your seats. I anticipate the feminist outcry. I, too, shudder at my own view. However, I am honest enough to say them aloud. I am an advocate for gender equality, but I do not think it’s necessary to forgo the “feminine touch” to attain it. Does equality mean we should “be the same” or is there an expectation and desire to be “treated the same” regardless of gender. Why even call it gender equality?

Hillary was a shining example of gender fluidity. Of course, one may say, the term “feminine touch” is subjective. I implore you to revisit Hillary in her earlier years; with her notable career, there are countless sources from which to choose. Some may argue that gender fluidity is perfectly acceptable and perhaps applaud her androgyny. As a woman, I completely understand the desire (and or necessity) to conform as one rises through the ranks. I think as she lost her femininity, she sacrificed her competitive advantage; the fact that she is “or was” a woman.

 


Want to write for us? We're looking for interns and experienced writers! Go here for more information.

About The Author

One Response

  1. Su

    If you’re going to base your vote on what someone looks like (as a woman) it’s no different than people who would vote for one man (who’s handsome, sexy, commanding, or all those other stupid external and meaningless aspects of a person) versus voting for the man who’s truly qualified. This idiotic voting based on appearance has been an ongoing problem when it was only men who were the candidates. It made no sense with them and it makes no sense when considering a woman.
    Furthermore, if you ascribe femininity to someone because they wear a dress instead of a pantsuit (regardless of how feminine it is, because I suppose you would approve of more “feminine” pantsuits than the one in the picture) then you’re really missing the big picture, big time.
    I don’t think being either gender guarantees any particular set of policies, and I would hope that it doesn’t; I think it’s absurd to think that all women love peace, or all black people love XYZ, or that any group by gender or ethnicity think or act in a certain way–that was the basis for all the sexism and racism that has existed, and flipping it around to make all women or all people of color “good” instead of “bad” is just part of the same problem.
    But to not be able to see the many ways in which she was an highly qualified, extremely capable candidate because of being unable to look past her pantsuits and other ways that she wasn’t “feminine” enough? Well then, I guess that’s why all of you now have Trump to deal with. I’d like to think that this would be a wake-up call for the idiotic and self-loathing 53% of white women voters. I hope it has been, thought it’s a little too late for that. Then again, all around me I see white women (and women of color) who still shave themselves to still look like newborn babies, who wear clothes and shoes that turn them into showpieces for men, who continue to buy into all the things that have been forced on women so that women in countless ways are still being defined by men. And then someone like Hillary busts her ass for her whole life to be taken seriously, to do countless things to improve the lives of women so that we don’t have to keep carrying this meaningless and oppressive label of “feminine” and what does she get for it? 53% of women voters turning against her.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.