Hillary, ‘weak’? Not from where I’m standing | Jessica Valenti – “Women are stronger – if you do not believe it guys, try being nine months birthing a new human? Give up your false biases!”

Women’s supposed fragility was used as an argument against giving us the vote. The debate about Clinton’s pneumonia plays into the same old prejudices

Source: Hillary, ‘weak’? Not from where I’m standing | Jessica Valenti

The link between women’s mental and physical fitness to political engagement was so strong, in fact, that Susan B Anthony once said that bicycles had “done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world”. They not only quite literally got women out of the house and into more comfortable clothes, but they chipped away at the notion that women were physically weak.

Decades later, the notion that women’s bodies are somehow less suited for political life remains. After all, it wasn’t merely boorishness that led Donald Trump to criticize Megyn Kelly by alluding to her period – there’s a longstanding myth about women’s hormones making them unfit to lead. (Comedian Hari Kondabolu has my favorite response to sexists who think a woman’s judgement is impaired once a month: “I’m a man with a penis and testicles, my judgement is impaired every five to seven minutes.”)

It wasn’t a coincidence, either, that when Politico reported on Clinton’s illnessthey described her dizzy spell as “swooning” – a term rarely used to describe men. Even Trump’s comments that Clinton doesn’t have a “presidential look” signal a particular sexist disdain.

The truth is that the campaign trail is brutal, and working all hours through an illness like Clinton’s shows strength, not weakness. That we would see it as anything but stamina reveals a tired double standard. Besides, what’s more important right now than an individual’s health is the health of our nation. Coughs aside, I think we all know whose hands that would be safer in.

So blue. The heartbroken case for Hillary Clinton – Medium – I am for her but for those who doubt – read this, please.

Hillary Clinton will provide some small, inadequate measure of assistance to the growing masses of victims even while she continues to pander to the very forces of their destruction. She’s oblivious to techno-capitalism’s looming dead end, because it contradicts the story of human infallibility, and she’s too cynical to believe that a post-capitalist future is possible. But she won’t (overtly) suppress dissent or work to attack, disrupt and destroy progressive people’s movements or to terrorize and ruin the lives of immigrants (at least, not as aggressively as Trump surely would with a helping hand from ALEC, the NRA, the KKK and legions of confused, scared, heavily-armed white men). That doesn’t give us much breathing room, but it’s something.I won’t belabor the Trump-Hitler comparison here, but read this if you harbor any doubts about the nature of Trump’s personality disorder and intentions. This is a nihilistic man punch drunk on ego and power, hungry for violence, all in for cutthroat competition, incapable of self-reflection, one hand on the nuclear button and the other on Mein Kampf, capable of the unthinkable. What he cannot create he will destroy — such is the nihilist’s endgame.That, in the end, is why I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton — because she isn’t Donald Trump. I will vote for Clinton* and, if she wins, I will not be excited or happy, not even a tiny bit.

Source: So blue. The heartbroken case for Hillary Clinton – Medium