Maybe the reason Hillary Clinton is so unpopular isn’t due to her scandal-ridden past, but an unfortunate result of society’s inherent bias towards women in general.
That’s what Boing Boing writer Caroline Siede speculated in a recent article in which she attempted to get to the bottom of Clinton’s likability problem. Siede makes a convincing argument that art has failed us by training us to “empathize with white men” who, though flawed, “have an innate core of humanity.” On the flip side, such “stories about everyone else” are less prevalent.
She draws a line between the way we perceive Hillary Clinton versus her male counterparts, such as Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine, stating that while Clinton’s flaws are what make her unlikeable, the flaws of these men are what make them likable.
“Gallons of digital ink have been spilled trying to figure out why Clinton struggles so much with likability,” Siede says, “But perhaps the problem isn’t with her at all. Maybe it’s with us.”
Sanders is a “fiery activist,” Biden a “truth teller,” and Kaine an “earnest goof.” We forgive these men for their imperfections, but struggle to do the same for Clinton — even though according to Siede, she’s the “most qualified human being to ever run for president” — because we don’t have “cultural touchstones for flawed but sympathetic women.” In other words, art has failed us by not providing us with enough female protagonists who are “allowed to be flawed.” And, as a result, we have become accidentally sexist.
However, the failure of art does not completely excuse Clinton’s actions. She is not the most qualified person to run for president, nor are her flaws equivalent to Bernie Sanders’ yelling, Joe Biden’s being “hopelessly old-fashioned,” or Tim Kaine’s awkwardness.
Hillary Clinton is someone who has held public office and accomplished virtually nothing (she was only able to get one bill passed as a New York senator). She served as secretary of state, during which time she increased our involvement in foreign wars and regime changes, lied about the attacks on the United States embassy in Benghazi (which resulted in the deaths of four Americans), and attempted to cover up said lies by jeopardizing national security via her private email server. Additionally, when evidence of the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries was released, Clinton hired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the woman who orchestrated the affair.
These “flaws” are more than just “messily realistic.” They are more than her appearing cold or walled off during speeches and debates. They shed light on serious problems with Clinton’s character as well as her inability to perform her job as a civil servant. Her likability problem is not due to the fact that we were never taught to “empathize with flawed women the way we have with flawed men.” Instead, it’s an objective look at why someone — who has consistently underperformed at best and continuously conducted herself in a corrupt manner at worst — does not deserve a promotion to the highest office in the country.
Perhaps Siede is right that we might cut a man a little more slack for the same behavior, but that doesn’t mean we should do so for Clinton too. It is wrong that Donald Trump continues to be excused for his blatantly racist, sexist, and xenophobic statements. But excusing Clinton for her faults does not correct the problem. Perhaps rather than lowering standards for women, we should raise the standards for men. Anyone running for office should be held under the same scrutiny, and Clinton is not totally unworthy of the criticism she has received.
