Part 1: How Sexism Has Made You Buy Into Trumped-Up (no pun intended) Controversies

A quick intro from Lianna: I don’t self-identify as a feminist; I have trouble with the word “feminist.” But throughout this election I’ve been bothered by the sexism behind the Hillary Clinton “trust issue.” About a week ago, I watched a video in which Senator Elizabeth Warren urged viewers to speak out and talk to strangers about this election. I was inspired by her words to write a post about why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton. I brought this idea to Carley and here’s where the idea has taken us.

Listen up, undecided voters, because I’m talking to you. (If you’ve already voted or you’ve decided who you’re voting for, you can listen, too.) This is an important election and there’s a lot at stake. Most years, we have two qualified candidates who could both do the job. You may completely disagree with one of them, but if they won, they wouldn’t break America. Unfortunately, that’s not the case this year, so it’s important that we make the right choice.

You may be a conservative and therefore opposed to everything Hillary Clinton stands for. That’s valid. I don’t share your views, but I respect them. If that is you, then please get involved and try to save your party, because Donald Trump is dragging it down. Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton doesn’t represent your politics or she does and you just don’t like her, I implore you to read on and please don’t ignore the fact that her gender might be influencing the way you feel about voting (or not voting) for her. Think about the reason(s) you don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton. You probably aren’t coming up with “She’s a woman,” but we’re all influenced by the views of the societies we live in, and sexism is rampant in American society. So while you probably didn’t come up with “She’s a woman” as a reason not to vote for her, the reasons you did come up with are likely influenced by Hillary Clinton’s womanhood. So let’s take a look at some of those possible reasons.

1.) Benghazi. What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy. Four Americans lost their lives on September 11, 2012 and perhaps more could have been done to prevent that from happening. However, as The Atlantic reports, the Republican-led House committee investigating Benghazi “did not find any evidence of wrongdoing against Clinton” and instead attributed the attack to a lack of preparedness. Furthermore, while I in no way mean to make light of this tragic incident, it could have been worse. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from 1/21/09 through 2/1/13 (4 years), there were 7 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities resulting in a total of 8 deaths (not including deaths of the attackers). In the 4 years before she took office, there were 6 attacks resulting in 21 deaths. And in the 4 years before that, there were 6 attacks resulting in 24 deaths. Benghazi was terrible, but you can’t say it was Hillary Clinton’s fault unless you’re also willing to say that it was Condoleeza Rice’s fault that 2 Yemeni civilians died when a mortar round aimed at the U.S. Embassy hit a nearby school in 2006, or Colin Powell’s fault that 12 Pakistani civilians died from a truck bomb outside the U.S. Consulate in 2002.

2.) The emails. Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that her use of a private email account and server was a mistake and she has since apologized for it, even though she’s hardly the only one to do it. While serving in government roles Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Howard Dean, and Jeb Bush (among others) all used private email accounts to conduct government business. Like Clinton, Jeb Bush also used his own private server. Nobody is perfect, including elected officials. We can’t hope for perfection. All we can hope for is that they learn from their mistakes and do better in the future.

But, maybe you don’t care about those things, or you believe that they shouldn’t be disqualifying. Maybe you just don’t trust her. If that’s the case, you’re not alone. A CNN/ORC poll conducted in July found that 68% of those surveyed said Clinton was not honest and trustworthy. Only 30% said that she was honest and trustworthy. A CBS News poll conducted around the same time found similar results with 67% of respondents thinking Hillary Clinton was not honest and trustworthy compared with 29% who thought she was. If you’re a part of that majority that thinks she’s dishonest, it might surprise you to find out that Politifact – an independent, nonpartisan fact-checking organization – disagrees. Politifact rates statements by various politicians, pundits, organizations, etc. Statements can be deemed True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. 51% of rated statements made by Hillary Clinton have been True or Mostly True, with only 27% being rated Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. Now, you might be thinking that 51% truthful isn’t that great, and if she were your friend, you might be right. But she’s a politician, and there’s a reason that the first things that come to mind when most people hear “politician” are liar, cheater, sleazy, etc. Politicians are notorious for saying what they need to say to win over whoever they’re talking to at the time and for bending the truth to fit their needs, but Hillary Clinton is more honest than most.

Hillary Clinton tells the truth 51% of the time. That’s not great, but it’s better than current president Barack Obama (48%), Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson (44%), House Speaker Paul Ryan (35%), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (17%) and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (15%). Politifact is a relatively new site (launched in 2007) so most former presidents haven’t been rated, but let’s assume they’d be in that 40-50% range with Bill Clinton (49%) and Barack Obama. Most people didn’t say, “I can’t vote for [Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, etc.] because I don’t trust him.” So, why is trust suddenly such an important part of this election? Because Hillary Clinton is not a “him.” She is a woman, and as a woman she is held to impossibly high standards.

We expect women to be like Carol Brady, the matriarch with a heart of gold from the Brady Bunch; Princess Diana, beautiful, open, and generous; or Tami Taylor, Friday Night Lights’ truth-telling, advice-giving, always supportive wife, mother and guidance counselor. We expect a woman to be pure but not a prude, good but not self-righteous, and honest but not too honest. God forbid she tell us something we don’t want to hear. Women are expected to tell the truth but are then punished when they do. We are holding Hillary Clinton to a higher standard than any of her male counterparts and it isn’t right. Why should she be judged for what she’s said when all these men were judged for what they’ve done? And what she’s done has been impressive, but we’ll get to that. Whether or not you vote for her should be based on her platform and what she stands and fights for. Hillary Clinton should be judged as a politician, not as a politician who happens to be a woman.

If you’re still reading this and you’re still undecided, please go take some time to think about whether your indecision is being influenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Are you holding her to a higher standard because of her gender? Do you expect more from her than you would from any other politician? If a man made the same mistakes that Hillary Clinton has, would it prevent you from voting for him? It’s hard to admit that we may have some sexist tendencies, but it’s important to confront the hard truths and to try to be better. So let your mind open up to the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency and then come back in a few days for Part II, where we’ll talk about why the woman is pretty darn great.

-Carley & Lianna-

Update (10/30/16): In light of the recent letter from FBI Director James B. Comey to Congress, we felt that we should update this post to explain why these new emails are irrelevant. The new emails that everyone is talking about came from the computer of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, whose estranged wife is a top aide to Hillary Clinton. Congressman Weiner is being investigated for sending sexually explicit text messages to a minor, not for anything relating to Hillary Clinton’s emails. There is no evidence to suggest that these new emails actually pertain to Hillary Clinton. Any negative stories you are hearing from Donald Trump or Fox News regarding these emails are just that: stories, rumors. Mr. Comey deliberately sent his letter to Congress before FBI agents had a chance to comb through the emails and decide if they are relevant at all to the Hillary Clinton investigation. Thus his letter was incredibly vague, allowing Hillary’s opponents to spin the letter and create drama where there is none.  This decision was irresponsible and has people worrying about something that may not have to do with Hillary at all. The FBI has already closed her case saying that nothing illegal was done and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Weiner’s recently discovered emails relate to Hillary Clinton. So, please do not fret over the “new emails” you keep hearing about.
Please see this New York Time’s article for more information.