Why Do “Brogressives” Fight Female Leadership?
03 Nov 2015
Why do we still demand impossible metrics for women on likeability, “authenticity” and credibility while automatically conferring those qualities upon men? Senator Bernie Sanders got in some hot water last week owing to senior campaign operatives’ remarks about being “willing to consider” Hillary Clinton for Vice President and “consenting to interview her.” His adviser’s statements were as insecure as they were condescending, considering Clinton is beating Sanders nationally to the tune of 25+ points. Good for Sanders for disavowing their inappropriate behavior. Yet, as Amanda Marcotte noted, it’s not just about sexist remarks – but how those attitudes stand in the way of women achieving equal pay, advancement and acceptance in positions of leadership.
Media strategist Shawna Vercher states that, “When we get to see a woman candidate without the media’s filter, and her abilities shine through, that does more to dispel sexist notions and help us conceive of the possibility of a female Commander in Chief. Otherwise we’ll just keep debating and complaining about sexist comments with no change.”
Author and Commentator Anita Finlay noted that Hillary Clinton’s grace under pressure during her recent 11-hour long marathon grilling by a hostile, disrespectful Benghazi “special committee” “won her more fans and grassroots contributors than her attackers could possibly have imagined.” Which brings us to the next question: Do women first have to survive being burned at the stake in order for us to take them seriously, or find them “likable”?
Isn’t it time to confront our society’s ridiculous double standards? Sanders people proved that it’s not only the right that puts women down – while it may be a matter of degree, clearly some on both sides need to work on checking their bias at the door.
Join us for a fiery debate on Dare We Say.