The lizard-brained and misogynistic argument
Uh oh – emergency emergency – a woman appears to have ambition. DANGER.
In recent months, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems to have begun positioning herself for a presidential run in 2020. She’s been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement, pushed for Al Franken’s resignation, and endured a gross Twitter feud with the president. But despite her rising celebrity, a new op-ed in the Daily Beast suggests Gillibrand is too “too transparently opportunistic to be a viable candidate.”
Yeah. She’s supposed to be flirtatious about it, not just walk right up and say she wants it. Directness is great in a man but in a woman it’s gross and scary and emasculating.
In an essay published on Friday, writer and editor Ciro Scotti compares Gillibrand to “another New York politician criticized for basing her positions on supposedly canny calculations rather than on from-the-gut convictions,” and says she doesn’t appear “genuine” enough to run against Trump.
Ah what a funny coincidence that they both happen to be women. What are the odds, eh? Especially when female politicians are so outnumbered by the male kind?
All politicians are opportunistic; it’s practically a job requirement. But Scotti falls back on the same old, tired, lizard-brained and misogynistic argument that people used against Hillary Clinton: That ambitious women are off-putting. Not only that, he seems to say, Gillibrand is especially unappealing, because she seized political opportunities at the expense of men. The horror!
There are valid criticisms to be made about Gillibrand as a candidate, and I’m sure they will be over the course of the next three years. As Scotti’s op-ed confirms though, the road to 2020 will be long, tiresome, and full of sexist garbage — not that you’d thought otherwise.
Backward and in high heels, I tell you.
OMG, a “girl” is not only daring to wield a lightsaber but she she’s doing it as well as the boiz — without formal training, yet. Must be a witch to achieve this, burn her!
Mitt Romney expected to run for the Senate: “Oh, won’t that be nice!”
Joe Biden publicly musing about running for president for the third time, having failed dismally the first two: “Oh, he’ll be a formidable candidate!”
Hilary Clinton wishes everyone a Happy New Year: “why won’t she just go away? Nobody cares about failed presidential candidates!”
Everyone on the planet is genuine enough to run against Trump. Everyone and Caligula’s horse.
That pretty much sums it up.
Also, I actually prefer my politicians to think AND to seize opportunities as they arise. It’s called leadership.
I read the article in The Cut and was agreeing that sounded pretty bad, but then I clicked through to the Daily Beast article and it’s much more reasonable than portrayed. A third article is mentioned as having “valid criticisms” but it has a lot of the same (apparently invalid) criticisms as the Daily Beast article. That article is even entitled “The Shape-Shifter”, the point being the same one as in the Daily Beast, that Gillibrand opportunistically changes positions.
I really don’t get the vibe that the DB article is anti-woman. It’s got what could be seen as a cheap shot against Hillary. I don’t think it’s completely an unfair point. If Hillary lost in part because she was seen as inauthentic, then we don’t want (heaven forbid) another candidate losing for Trump in 2020 for the same reason.
This seems like a ridiculous extrapolation:
I’d be curious what part of the article seems to say that to the author. The only thing I can see is her rivals were men, but I see no hint that female rivals would have been somehow more acceptable.
To be clear, I’d be fine with Gillibrand, and I’d certainly take her over the current idiot.