Mainstream media paints the brand of sexism that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton faces as mostly subtle. That’s the gist of many Clinton articles, which point out the barely noticeable little things her opponents can do with impunity — like yelling (see Sanders, Bernie) or making a fortune (see Trump, Donald) — but which Clinton can’t do without sounding shrill or seeming greedy. (You might add visiting a mosque to her can’t list.)
The Guardian titled one article Don’t tell her to smile: the subtle sexism still facing Hillary Clinton while the Washington Post considers The sexist double standards hurting Hillary Clinton. (And yet this subtle sexism, while corrosive, is still far less abhorrent than the flagrant sexism Clinton faces if you look at the comments below these articles.) The New York Times claims that “more time in a sexist world radicalizes women” — and that these radicalized feminists turn into Clinton supporters. (So the sexism works to her advantage, too, purportedly.) Of course, it’s hard to claim that sexism has really held Ms. Clinton back: she’s been a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State, after all. She’s also winning the nomination process so far — so what sexism she has faced she’s faced with success. But in these times where optics — what things look like — are so important in the din, it’s interesting to ask what if Hillary Clinton’s record belonged to a man? One who looked like the photo above? Few will admit it –some may not even realize it — but the smiling male hawk above might get more votes.
