General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Among other things, they expose a troubling degree of sexism and bias in our party.
The applauding of macho behavior as a positive political attribute - and the suggestion that Hillary wasn't "tough" enough because she didn't display more of it - reveals a mindset in our party that should be very concerning.
According to this attitude, unless a candidate can talk more like a bully, they're weak. But anyone being honest knows that while this might work for a man, any woman who behaved that way would be lambasted as too hard, too coarse and, of course, "not likeable." And since most women politicians would not speak or behave that way, are they disqualified from running for president because a man will always be more macho and, therefore, "tougher?"
And the insistence that this kind of talk is a good thing because it "appeals" to red state voters should make us think about our own values and motivations. Are we trying to replicate Trump's behavior or present ourselves as a superior alternative? Trump's racism appeals to many of those voters, too. Should we imitate that, as well? And where does all that "economic insecurity" talk fit in?
"Toughness" comes in many forms. Boasting about beating someone up in high school isn't necessarily one of them. And the fact that such talk appeals to a certain element within and outside of our party and maybe within each of us doesn't make it a good thing.
All in all, this is a very interesting - and illuminating- conversation.
Carry on.