Can we please just stop playing the 'man card'?

[question everything]

Donald Trump’s warning that Hillary Clinton supporters should not play the “woman card” in this election has been generating a slow burn in my psyche. The real problem is that the “man card” has been played for so many centuries — in businesses, homes, schools, religious institutions and governing bodies — that when we consider a candidate for our highest office, even many women are incapable of judging a female candidate’s qualities without comparing her to all the male-only candidates in America’s 240-year history.

(snip)

Instead of facing these prejudices, we make up all sorts of bogus reasons why it’s just this particular candidate that we are not comfortable with:

She’s too establishment. What could be more establishment than electing another male president? Isn’t 44 in a row glaring enough evidence of gender inequity in our society?

You can’t trust her. Give me a break. We’ve observed this woman for 25 years. What’s not to trust? We’ve observed her as first lady — both for a governor and a president — as a senator, the secretary of state, a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a supporter of human rights, a lawyer. She has devoted her life to public service. She sat for hours on end testifying about her personal e-mail system that she used as secretary of state — which, incidentally, was also the practice of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, but you don’t see them testifying about it before congressional committees ad nauseam.

She’s too guarded. You would be a little circumspect about what you said and how you said it, too, if you had suffered 25 years of brutal verbal abuse, lack of respect and outright degradation by the opposing party. If I were she, I’d be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Wouldn’t you prefer a president who thinks about the ramifications of her statements before she speaks, rather than someone who blurts out what is expedient at the moment, then changes his stance, so that you can never rely on what he says?

(snip)

She’s not exciting, it’s the tone of her voice, her pantsuits, etc. Come on, folks. We are interviewing candidates for the most important office in the United States, arguably the most important world leader. We are not interviewing a candidate for “The Bachelorette” or “The Apprentice.” Do you want someone who has traveled to 112 countries, met and established rapport with their leaders, or someone who doesn’t even know the names of these leaders or what country they are from?

(snip)

I wonder if anyone is keeping track of the amount of time on all of the news stations that is being spent on each candidate. I observe glaring differences that constitute a subtle but definite indication of preference given to male candidates, in a media establishment that is substantially owned and run by males.

It is high time we stop playing the man card.

Coleen Carlstedt-Johnson is a retired attorney in Brooklyn Park, MN

http://www.startribune.com/can-we-please-just-stop-playing-the-man-card/380888531/

[SheilaT]

1. Yet another person who supports Hillary almost solely

because she's a female.

I'll look at the trust one. How in the world am I supposed to someone who lies over and over about things that are easily checked, like being under fire in Bosnia, or the Reagans and AIDS. Plus, of course, for the past few years she's been lying about her emails and the server. But I'm supposed to trust her?

Really?

[TheBlackAdder]

2. I believe that's the First-wave Feminism of the early 1970's, not the modern Third-wave.

[SheilaT]

3. Even the first wave feminism

did not support women just because they were women. There was a deep understanding that many women are ever bit as capable as men in almost every field of endeavor, and had been held back needlessly because they are women.

The supposed bogus reasons in the OP are actually valid reasons. Except for any criticism of her appearance or wardrobe. She really isn't very trustworthy. She really is too establishment. As for the "too guarded", I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. There have been times when she's blurted out some sort of cringe-worthy stuff, such as when confronted with BLM. Otherwise, given time to think about it, she'll tell an easily dis-proven lie than the truth. How in the world does that make her someone to rely on?

[question everything]

4. No, of course not. Even though many supported Obama becuase he is black

at least in 2008.

The writer points the excuses that people use to disqualify her. We have seen many attacks and criticism on Obama that appeared to have been on point but the reality, as we've seen in the past seven year, they were because he is black. I have not spent much time on these pages the way I did in 2008, but I do remember DUers saying that Hillary reminded them of their mother so, of course, they could not vote for her. And I do remember all the comments about her makeup, her hair, her pantsuit her.... thick ankles.

I do hope that come November you will vote for her over Trump. Staying home, the way many did in 1968 will bring a Republican to the White House, will tilt the Supreme Court to the right and it will take a generation, as it was from 1968 to 1992 - to, maybe, get the White House again.

[SheilaT]

5. I, for one, am completely done with voting for a lesser evil.

Going forward I will only vote for someone I actually support.

I might wind up writing Bernie's name in.

Especially in light of the recent stuff with her emails, I'm completely baffled that so many continue to support her, continue to excuse her lying, her crappy judgement, her apparent assumption that people are too stupid to figure her out.

And stop saying, Oh, she's still better than Trump.

So who would you rather? Pol Pot or Stalin? Which one of those is the lesser of two evils. Quite frankly, that's how I see the choice between Clinton and Trump.

Those of you who continue to support her can shoulder the responsibility for all that will go down in her administration.

Personally, I'm hoping that people will FINALLY understand how terrible she is and turn away from her in greater number.

Oh, and the most recent polling shows that a whopping 19% of voters thinks she's trustworthy. Is THAT really a candidate worth supporting?

And are you forgetting that we did have a Democratic President from 1977 to 1981?

[840high]

6. .that^

[Avalux]

9. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Kudos.

[tandem5]

10. Out of curiosity was Obama in the last two elections a lesser of two evils vote for you?

[azurnoir]

11. +10000

[Avalux]

7. Coleen is full of it.

I am repulsed by women who completely ignore or try to explain away Hillary's failures as attacks on her womanhood.

[jillan]

8. Oh looky. Another thread about genitals.