Let’s Not Pretend Electing The First Female President Wouldn’t Be Radical
By Rachel Hills
This story is part of The Establishment’s ongoing series exploring the political dialogue surrounding the democratic presidential candidates, progressivism, and feminism.
It’s a strange thing, being a Hillary Clinton fan on the Internet. Right now, it feels a lot like the film Candyman, except instead of saying Hillary’s name five times, you only need to say it once to conjure a bunch of Bernie Sanders fans talking about what a corporate harpy she is. Oh, and why aren’t you voting for Bernie?
And I get it, kind of. Not the harpy thing, but the Bernie thing. There are things I like about Bernie Sanders, too: the prospect of universal healthcare, for one. And if Democratic primary voters decide that his vision is the one they want to take into the general election, I will happily campaign for him.
But I want to challenge the idea that he is the most or the only radical option in the Democratic race. Specifically, I want to challenge the idea that electing the first female president wouldn’t be big, or important, or radical.
One argument I’ve seen circulating amongst Bernie supporters — his young, female supporters, especially — is that it’s bad feminism to support Hillary on the basis that she is a woman.
