Hey, thoughtful article, I’d love to further this discussion with you if you see this comment. I disagree, and I’ll explain why. Though his comments were a bit off-colored, the essence of what he said is still true. Being a woman (in a era where a lot of people think it’s time for a woman to be president, myself included) does not mean that you should automatically get the job. Of course Clinton is accomplished, there is no denying that. But she herself, and her surrogates, have used her womanhood as leverage in this race. She has overcome adversity that Bernie Sanders has nor will ever know, but when it comes to being president, we shouldn’t choose on who has had the harder life, but rather who has had the best, consistent record, and who has the best decision for America. Undoubtedly, Clinton’s status as a woman has brought her insight into the struggles of being a woman (naturally) and that has great value, but Bernie’s record with women’s rights goes just as far as Hillary’s. Both have consistently stood up for women (one of the only things Hillary has been consistent on, though I could probably knock her down a peg on the issue if you’d like me to elaborate.)
“ Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified because of female sexual reproductive organs,” This is a quote from your article, in your own words, which basically paraphrases what Killer Mike says. You must agree with him, since you basically just mimicked exactly what he said. You threw on the qualifier “she is qualified despite them,” and of course she is, but now you’re insinuating that Killer Mike doesn’t believe that. He never said that she wasn’t qualified. He never said that being a woman means she isn’t qualified. He is saying that being a female doesn’t automatically mean that you should be our next president, which you agree with, no?
The difference in his statements vs Albright’s and Steinem’s comments is that his were true, and their’s weren’t. Sure, all three were crassly stated, but the essence of the message is the important part, and both of their messages were blatantly false. You’re right that Albright has said this before, but there is a time and place for this statement, and it isn’t at a rally. She is literally saying that woman should be condemned if they don’t support Hillary. Why? Well, because Clinton is a woman, and woman have an obligatory duty to help each other! That isn’t true. Steinem’s comments are also blatant lies, which downgrade the political choices and motives of woman. There is no justifying that comment at all.
You say that these women made these remarks out of their frustration with woman not supporting Clinton. Killer Mike’s comments were out of frustration that some people are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman, and not looking at her record more thoroughly. These people do exist, I have a teacher who said she was voting for Hillary because “it’s time to have a woman president,” despite her agreeance with Bernie’s policies and platform. Killer Mike was speaking to these woman, and he is right. Steinem and Albright, with their remarks, were speaking to woman who didn’t support Hillary only because she is a woman, and they are wrong. Woman shouldn’t be condemned for not supporting a woman as president (even if the statement was made jokingly) and woman shouldn’t have their political views reduced to this idea that younger woman are only supporting who “the boys” support. But, Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president because of her status as a woman, that is undeniable. She is qualified to be president because of her experience, and Killer Mike never said she wasn’t.