“ I realize Hillary is not perfect. I get that. BUT I also get that as a woman in this field she has had no choice but to play the game. Men don’t understand that unless they have been held back or discriminated against, being a woman is not always easy, and Hillary Clinton is a woman who has fought her way to the top, overcome the obstacles, and fearlessly wore that pant suit into battle. I voted for her. I am proud of my vote for her.”
You have a point, in the sense that women are indeed held to patriarchal expectations.
They are expected to be belligerent warmongers, violent extremists, and morally bankrupt callous sociopathic narcissists.
This is certainly an utterly reprehensible injustice towards women, I will not doubt it for an instant.
But the bit I don’t understand is why succeeding in emulating some of the worst men on earth is a sign of progress.
Surely having more women behaving like the most repugnant men on earth is the opposite of gender equality?
I don’t understand it. If George Bush or LBJ is a man, is it progress for a woman to be able to ‘succeed’ like him too? I genuinely don’t understand. Would a woman becoming the Queen of the Kim Dynasty in North Korea, would that be progress? Or a woman caliph? Or Fuhrerin? Or Dalai Lama (in the incredibly unlikely event of a restoration of the old Tibetan theocracy?)
I just don’t fully follow the logic of what you are saying. I don’t seem to fully get it.