A recent article from a writer for Pajiba called An All Caps Explosion of Feelings Regarding the Liberal Backlash Against Hillary Clinton has gotten quite a lot of coverage online and on social media, allegedly "breaking the internet" according to some and certainly creating a lot of discussion. The article is well-articulated (especially considering it was written in an intentionally inflammatory manner) and expresses some obviously widely-shared frustrations over gender inequalities. It also raises some really significant points about how these inequalities translate into the media and politics--points that are usually not evident to men, in particular. Now, don't get me wrong, such sentiments are certainly appreciated and warranted given the persistent gender disparities that exist at all levels of society, which no doubt have influenced Hillary Clinton's political experiences significantly.
That being said, let's not pretend as if Clinton does not also have her own unique and incredibly powerful sets of privileges in this campaign--i.e. virtually unlimited campaign financing, a very influential and very large network of political allies, and lest we forget, the support of the all-powerful DNC, who has so far not proven a big fan of Bernie Sanders.
Let's also not pretend that Sanders has somehow been shown red-carpet treatment by either the media or the public for his political views, either because he is a man or otherwise. Sanders has consistently been a political outsider, often mocked or dismissed for his ideas within the US political establishment.
And finally, let's be honest about differences in platform consistency between both candidates. Varying public impressions of Sanders and Clinton, even in regards to similarly-held positions on specific policies, might have as much to do with gender and as with candidates' policy stances over time. Sanders has been preaching the same politics for decades, while Clinton seems to be riding the popular wave of leftist ideas. This can be either dismissed or appreciated--as the ALL CAPS article states, this could be seen an example of Clinton growing as a politician--but it cannot be ignored.
These subtleties might be obscured by Sanders' recent popularity among young voters (of whose votes Sanders won 84% in the Iowa caucus) a demography that is by-and-large the most represented on social media. Based on a standard daily Twitter or Facebook newsfeed, one could easily get the impression that not only is Bernie Sanders destined for the presidency, but that he is also some sort of renegade political folk hero of magnificent proportions. This demographically-skewed sample, however, reflects far more about the people using Facebook (and their biases and prejudices) than it does the political reality.
It would be overly-simplistic to imply that, if only Clinton were not a woman, her politics could or would be different, more radical, more consistent, more exciting to young people or whatever else. It seems naive to say that Hillary has to "play the game" just because of her gender--it is part of the greater political equation, no doubt, but Clinton's politics and ideas, like Clinton herself, are far more complex than that. Not that such a reductive reading was either the message or point of the ALL CAPS Pajiba piece, which as previously stated, definitely conveyed a very understandable sentiment. Just that such a reductive reading could belie other significant political difference between the two candidates.
It is a shame that we have not yet had a female president. It is wrong that, even in 2016, Hillary Clinton (or any woman, for that matter) is still treated unjustly by a system and society that is pathologically patriarchal. This article is not meant to discount the role of gender in politics or to somehow claim that there is an even playing-field between Sanders and Clinton. This article is only trying to make the point that there are many additional dimensions to power and privilege that define this field--the field of what is politically possible--other than just gender.
And with the Republican field over yonder looking as heinously demagogic and removed-from-reality as ever, this is too important of an election to act otherwise.