Are Hillary's opponents just anti-women?

POLITICO wrote:Hillary’s Woman Problem

Hillary Clinton is an unquestioned pioneer—no woman has ever been president, or come anywhere near as close as she has. To many older feminists—the generation who lived through Women’s Lib, fought for Title IX and can quote The Feminine Mystique—this is a profound and galvanizing moment. The prize is in sight. Finally, young women across the country have the chance to finish the job their mothers and grandmothers started, and help vault Clinton into office. For those women who think otherwise, “there’s a special place in hell,” as Madeleine Albright put it this week.

But so far, the opposite appears to be happening: In New Hampshire’s primary, Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old white man, won 53 percent of the female vote, compared with Clinton’s 46 percent. And his numbers among young women were astonishing: 82 percent of women under age 30 supported him. What’s going on here? Why are millennial women giving up on Clinton? We asked a wide range of women—younger, older, in between, feminists and not—to deliberate on that question. Clinton’s shot at history just might depend on the answer.

If she were black, or gay, or poor, young liberals might be more inclined to vote for her," [said Molly Roberts, a] senior at Harvard University and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

Hillary Clinton’s presidency would be epochal—the first time in 227 years of American history that a woman would lead the White House’s West Wing rather than the East. So why do young people see this election cycle’s “outsider” as another gray-haired white guy?

There’s more to it than just young people’s attraction to radical change. Feminism has changed, especially on campus, and among the left-leaning. The fact is, among certain segments of the liberal millennial population, Clinton’s gender is simply not enough to make her a ground breaker. She might be a woman, but she is also white, and well-off, and straight. If she were black, or gay, or poor—as well as female, some young liberals might be more inclined to vote for her.

When I wrote a column recently for the Harvard Crimson explaining why I think many young women don’t like Clinton—and why they should—I got pushback from people who thought I was focusing too much on Clinton’s gender and not enough on the ways in which, despite being a woman, she has a leg up on most Americans. One online comment read:

“Establishment Harvard student exhorts her peers to support establishment Democratic candidate.” Another critique came in a Facebook status accusing me of ignoring the perspectives of minorities.

This vein of criticism is part of a concept that’s been around since the 1980s but just recently come into campus vogue—“intersectionality.” The word is shorthand for the idea that it’s impossible to separate social identities, or the oppression that surrounds them. Clinton may be a woman, but she is also white—and thus privileged. When Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright stand up for Clinton and urge young women to get behind her, they seem understandably shocked that women aren’t rallying together to help break through another final, uncracked pane of the glass ceiling. When a modern campus feminist watches the same scene, she sees a group of older, privileged white women circling the wagons around one of their own.

To many on the left, then, Clinton’s gender is simply not enough to make her exciting. She doesn’t belong to enough categories of disenfranchised people. In fact, some argue, the ways Clinton does fit into the establishment outweigh the way she doesn’t. Maybe it’s easier for people in a generation where more women than men are graduating from college to forget how difficult it once was to be female in the United States. The focus on hardship has shifted from sex to privilege as the country has moved forward on gender equality.

But, when women still struggle for equal pay and equal representation in government and industry, I’d argue that the country hasn’t moved forward far enough. Though it’s important that women be represented by black women, queer women and poor women, it’s surprising to me that, before any woman has even made it close to the White House, so many are spending time finding fault with the kind of woman who just might get there.
(This response has been condensed from a full article.

Why Millennials Don’t Care That Hillary Clinton Is a Woman
By MOLLY ROBERTS

eddie wrote:I don't think I need to tell you how I think; my posts speak for themselves mostly.

Great chatting to you though. We will have to agree to differ on Hilary though and this issue.

I don't think she's: evil (her husband) or bonkers mad (Trump) or too perfect (Obama) or a lying snob (Cameon) or away with the fairies (Corbyn)......but!

She's not right for the presidancy in my very humble opnion (given that I am not a master of politics)c

I like Bernie, but I'm afraid he's too....blah?

eddie wrote:Yeo I agree, you do have poor choices this time around, but hey, look who we've got running our country.