We can’t talk about Hillary’s gender. Why?
Hillary and the Other 1%
Satya Doyle Byock

With all of the *-isms, it’s the same. Centuries of discrimination based explicitly on gender/race/etc, where the heart of the rationale for exclusion is the *-ism, but once a sufficient number of those benefiting from that imbalance gain awareness, the problem is presumed solved. “We don’t see gender/race/etc anymore, and therefore mentioning it now is *-ist.”

Awareness of the most blatant biases often leads to one big change but ignores all of the little ones needed to reach equality, where gender/race/etc actually doesn’t impact access to power. This article was a great reminder of how difficult it is to become involved in politics, let alone being able to convince enough people to let you lead.

I turned that corner for good not long after voting for Obama over Clinton, echoing many of the positive reasons I hear supporters cite for voting for Sanders now. However, without choosing to focus on gender as one of the assets a candidate brings to the office, it will be another 500 years before we reach representative government organically (if then).

I have a 7yo daughter whose own political activity will be benefit from spending her tweens and teens with the “leader of the free world” being Hillary. I can’t think of a better gift I could give her than that vote.