With each passing day, the rhetoric from those vying for the Presidency is ramping up. The Republican party is still trimming down their candidates from the 15 that began this journey, while the Democrats have two real possibilities. I bring this up due to the recent comments of Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright. I am curious as to their rationale in criticizing women whom do not throw their support behind Hillary Clinton.
One could point out that she was pushing women towards the only Democratic woman nomination, with nary a mention of Carly Fiorina whilst she was still fighting for the Republican bid. Why is Clinton's womanhood more worthy of all female support, rather than Mrs. Fiorina? Albright in particular stated (as she has many times in the past), "...there is a special place in hell for women that do not support other women," specifically Hillary Clinton. That is asinine at best, but it also feels like an attempt to shame women who have the audacity to freely choose between the candidates. I can understand her logic, woman running for president, women should want a woman president, therefore they should all support Clinton.
By that logic all black people should then support Ben Carson, Latino Americans should be supporting Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio; that's not a logical method for selecting the President, nor is it an acceptable stance. Should all straight, heterosexual, Christian men support those that fit those molds? It would be met with justifiable anger and bewilderment if someone were to come out saying as much.
Albright and Steinem have received much-deserved backlash for stating something that ignorant. Steinem said: "When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie," in reference to her understanding of young women supporting Bernie Sanders. If I, a white man, were to say something similar to that, I would be justifiably crucified throughout social media, because it is not only stupid, but it discredits the merits of those voicing their opinion. It also makes those women whom offer Sanders support seem like clueless girls whom just want to play with the boys, who have the ideas that really matter.
It just doesn't make sense, in any logical mind, either of these assertions. When reading their words, immediately I thought of my daughter. Her 12-year-old mind is going to be delving into the world of feminine hygiene products, while dealing with an influx of hormones, questioning the world, developing her own ideas on political ideas, questioning herself, fighting stereotypes, and navigating through this crazy life. As her guide through these tumultuous changes, it is imperative to convey reasoning behind decision making, to analyze and to think before speaking. These ladies did not, instead just saying what they thought would steer women to support Clinton, because Clinton is their friend and the person they want to see garner the Democrat nomination for President.
Please do not take this as mansplaining, this is simply a veteran, father, moderate man that wants what is best for the country. Steinem and Albright's comments do a disservice to women, when in the past they have been beacons of breaking through their own glass ceilings. So what purpose does it serve to seemingly instill a one over on this new crop of promising females by implying they need to support Clinton, based only on the merits of her being a woman? While I am glad to see the public backlash, I just wish there weren't comments like this that bright women everywhere have to address.