Clinton: An Issue Of Gender

It is frightening how so many women are highly critical of Hillary Clinton potentially popping into the White House. I suppose it is not so much of a problem if there is a legitimate gripe, such as obvious potential to be an awful commander in chief or something. What I seem to be getting is rather a lot more of inexplicable I-don't-like-her or she's-so-arrogant. Opinions like these tend to raise alarm bells, signaling the possibility that it really is that old ugly harsh judgment of women cropping up again.

For some reason, women are the harshest critics of other women, and it seems to be quite the case here, too. Something that is deemed appropriate (ambition) in men is inappropriate (power-hungry) in women. This double standard could well be masking some other deeper motivation for women to undermine other women. If there ever was a fine example of divide and conquer, in-fighting between women would be shiny indeed.

Of course, I would likely stand by the feminists who claim that Clinton is just another bastion of patriarchy in a female shell. If people really stop to consider, men and women are equally responsible for maintaining the stranglehold of patriarchy. I fail to understand how a full half of society could be forced to unwillingly accept a yoke like patriarchy. There has to be some complicity here.

Then again, all this aside, I believe national leadership should be evaluated according to the merits of the candidates. That is, things that do not intrinsically affect candidate performance like race, gender and religion should really be put aside when making this important decision. Given the history of human irrationality, my hopes are not really up. But I do hope to see a woman in the White House for a change nonetheless.