I’m very bothered by the suggestion repeated by every journalist in the country that an interest in children’s health and anti-trafficking work are somehow “soft” or only of interest to mothers and not fathers. Or sisters, brothers, single people.
Why are we accepting the discourse that marginalizes these crucial issues as trivial or “soft”? How is hugging a child more “soft” than shaking the hand of a construction worker? How is children’s health more a female than a male issue? Do the men you know not care about the health of their children? If so, then stop hanging out with those morons, they suck.
Since when is screeching like a banshee about walls or scary, big Muslims more respectable than working to stop human trafficking?
Folks, let’s stop the insanity promoted by unprofessional and stupid journalists and avoid repeating the idiotic “Why has Hillary gone soft?” trope after them. These losers transmit nothing but their diseased sexism. When Hillary talks about foreign affairs, she’s hawkish and tries to be “like a man.” When she talks about anything else, she’s weak and only appeals to weaklings. Enough of this! None of this crap is making our lives better or advancing our understanding of anything.
Clarissa's Blog 
There is an old tale that when Adlai Stevenson was running for president, at one campaign stop or another, a supporter reached to be sure to get to shake his hand and said, “You have every thinking man’s vote.” Stevenson famously replied, “I’ll need more than that.”
If I am concerned about the tone of Clinton’s TV spots, it is because we need more than every thinking man’s / non-sexist’s vote.
I am trusting her campaign knows what it is doing because so far they seem to be doing everything right. It is a tall order to run for president AND confront and ameliorate our culture’s sexism at the same time. Especially when there are no models to follow.
LikeLike
These are to counter the warmonger image and they also contrast sharply with anything Trump can do.
LikeLike