The use of “isms” reigns supreme in a society where anyone can be anything that their feelings dictate. Among the overused terms in this category is one regarding gender. You disagree with a female? You’re a sexist. Did you not choose her for a job or internship? You’re a misogynist. Did you just compliment a woman? How dare you.
We’ve gone way beyond the point of no return, and even I – a female – have been accused of being anti-woman and hating my own. But it’s 2015, and women in the United States are not fighting for their right to vote, neither are they barred from receiving due pay in the workplace. These battles were won long ago. Any despair over supposed “systematic misogyny” is actually the misplaced envy of a woman wishing she could march for fashionable civil rights with the chicks from 1919.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have much going for her. She isn’t accomplished, she isn’t well-liked, and she isn’t charismatic. Oh, and she’s a liar and the subject of an FBI investigation. Her claims to fame? Sharing a last name with her husband, and the thing which she has no control over: her gender. Any day of the week Hillary will label the men (and woman) in the GOP field of candidates as being hateful toward females. We all expect it, and it’s yawn-inducing. But what about the same accusation directed toward a fellow Democratic candidate? It’s just too much. Seeing Hillary’s desperation for relevance, and another candidate’s defense of their very pro-choice, yet very “pro-woman platform”, is a thoroughly amusing combination.
This exact scenario occurred recently between Hillary Clinton and her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders.
As the Democratic presidential candidates prepare for their second debate next weekend, a disputed moment of alleged sexism from the first exchange has come to symbolize a sharper and more personal confrontation between Hillary Rodham Clinton and her chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The topic was gun control, the issue her campaign considers the keenest policy difference between Clinton and Sanders, and perhaps the only one on which he is positioned to her right. But it was Clinton’s suggestion, after the fact, that the senator from Vermont had spoken to her in a patronizing and dismissive way by accusing her of shouting that has added an edge to an almost painfully polite primary contest.
…the focus on the Sanders remark, which could easily be taken as harmless or ham-fisted at worst, raises the risk that Clinton may come off as thin-skinned or too politically correct.
Mrs. Sanders stood by her man and was having none of it…
“I think that’s a misrepresentation of what he said, and I think they know that,” she said. “I also think it diminishes the fact that many, many women have been victims of sexism, so why are you calling it out when it’s not there and you know it? That’s not okay.”
Seeing Democrats quarrel over how to accuse Republicans is a beautiful thing. The Sanders camp wrings their hands over these allegations in a way conservatives would not do. Why? Because we don’t care about such things. We may respond to accusations, but we would not place stock in their claims nor fret over them. Why? Because conservative men and women alike know the use of the baseless gender card when we see it, and it’s absurd. We don’t define ourselves by these labels like the Left does.
If you call sexism out when it’s not even there, you water down its actual occurrences. If everything is sexism, then nothing is sexism. The same is true for racism, or any “ism”, for that matter. You can’t find it around every bend. It is not everywhere, and it is not everything. But when being a female is one of your self-described merits, as Hillary said, and your everything else is worthless, you’ll use it any way you can against opponents.
I don’t care if Democratic candidates like Hillary and Bernie fight a war of words. Their glaring sexism hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg as far as skewed worldviews go, and it reaffirms what we’ve been saying all along.