This article is not intended to promote Hillary Clinton, but to examine how the ways in which she is commonly criticized, especially compared to her male rivals, are sexist. You, the reader, may be complicit in furthering this sexism, but mainstream media has done a pretty good job of making you think this way.
The largest focal point of late has been Clinton’s health, so let’s start there. When a man shows signs of sickness or wear, he comes off as tough. You admire him because he is fighting through pain to stand with the American people.
John F. Kennedy battled with life-threatening Addison’s disease, a condition of the adrenal glands characterized by a deficiency of the hormones needed to regulate blood sugar, sodium, potassium and the response to stress. Franklin D. Roosevelt was diagnosed with polio at 39, and went on to serve an unprecedented four terms in office.
Yet Clinton’s pneumonia has been prime time news material for more than a week.
Some voters criticize Clinton for not initially disclosing this information with the public, yet Kennedy and Roosevelt, along with the media, covered up much more serious medical conditions their whole presidencies.
Clinton has released more than enough information regarding her health report, yet the general public still make up their own theories regarding her health.
Men fetishize speaking for women. We have dictated what they can and cannot do, and whether their words hold any value.
If Clinton shows emotion, she’s weak, dramatic and crazy. Menopause jokes are made as media outlets question whether a woman can control her hormones and emotions enough to govern. Public figures ranging from T.I. to John McCain have suggested she is too emotional.
However, when a man is emotional, voters can connect with him. He is instantly relatable, compassionate and human.
If Clinton tries to be more emotionally restrained, she is called robotic, cold, fake and bitter. It is impossible to please a patriarchal society as a woman refusing to be more than a projection of male simplistic ideals; you are either not “woman” enough or not “politician” enough.
Trump is very emotional, and often speaks off the cuff. He and other men in politics are allowed to get angry, excited, laugh or lose their train of thought. When Clinton is angry, she’s a bitch. Her laugh is often called a cackle, inappropriate and maniacal. Her smile is “inappropriately exaggerated” and her eyes are too open.
Sixty-six percent of voters say they simply don’t trust Clinton in a recent Quinnipiac University poll. Curiously, voters cannot give specific reasons for this distrust other than uneasiness at the idea of Clinton being president.
Unfortunately, our culture simply has not yet evolved to where we can empathize with complex, flawed female protagonists enough to view them as one of us.
Our movies and televisions shows are filled with a range of one-dimensional female characters, but very few are shown as flawed in a messy but realistic way. Characters like Walter White, Han Solo, Tyrion Lannister and Frank Underwood are relatable because they are human, and male.
Yet female leads are rarely shown as flawed. When they are, they are inherently unlikable like Annalise Keating on “How To Get Away With Murder.”
Past elections show that presidential candidates must seem relatable, but we are hard-pressed as a society to relate to women — a group that has been relegated to supporting characters or objects since the founding of our country. Men possibly do not want to relate to a demographic deemed weaker than themselves.
We as a collective society do not want to call women sluts, psychopaths, liars and fakes, then empathize with their humanity that we just trashed.
The trashing of Clinton, the name-calling and attacking and booing that she gets ­— and that Trump doesn’t — further ingrain our sexist, negative views about powerful women. Each individual voter needs to analyze why they are attacking or saying certain negative things about a female candidate and where that sentiment comes from, before spewing vitriolic comments about any female politician.
Disagree with her policies all you want, but continuing hate-based commentary about Clinton implicitly says to us all that it will also be acceptable to throw the next female presidential candidate — viable or not — under the bus with detestable accusations and made-up charges. To let that kind of hateful disrespect for any woman continue allows it to become our cultural norm even more than it already is.
Ryan Thaxton is a 20-year-old mass communication sophomore from Monroe, Louisiana.