The argument became gendered when a man told a woman that talking about her vagina undermined her statement.
I don’t assume that your issue with HRC is her gender. At least, I’m sure that you don’t think it is. I’m merely attempting to compare and contrast my experiences with debating these issues. Men are the ones who use absolutes. Is it a Truth that Hillary Clinton is going to destroy the working class and the future of our country? If you examine her history of advocating for the lower/middle classes, in particular her history of advocacy for women, then I do not think you can draw this conclusion. Is she a perfect candidate? Definitely not. But don’t trot out the text of your decades old Republican smear campaign and expect me to accept it as Absolute Truth.
‘I regret Hillary’s stance on Libya and Palestine.’ ‘I don’t agree with the relationship that she has with wall street’ (despite the fact that, for 8 years in the senate, the people who worked on wall street were her constituents so it would concern me greatly if she DIDN’T have a relationship with them, but I digress.) These are the the terms that the females that I have debated with use. They do not cry in absolutes and they are able to defend their own positions without childishly vilifying my candidate.
Tristan, I’m sorry you’re mad at Hillary. I’m mad too. I’m mad that a candidate who has stumped for nine months on the issue of breaking up big banks seems to have little to no idea how to actually do it. I’m mad that he is anthropomorphisizing ‘big banks’ and ‘wall street’ as some giant common enemy when the issues are much more complex. I’m mad that white men seem to think it is their job to change my mind, and spend all of their time trolling my internet presence with their outrage and disbelief of the fact that I have an opinion. And yes, I am mad that many, many men have told me that I’m only voting for HRC because I’m voting with my vagina.