As the United States starts to wrap up an exciting primary season and enter conventions, two candidates have clearly emerged triumphant over the fray of mudslinging and deeply personal attacks. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton not only represent opposite affiliations but have also been at opposite ends of personal attacks. Trump has not shied away from these attacks, even coining nicknames like “Little Rubio,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Crooked Hillary” and “Crazy Bernie” to fuel his social media crusades, avidly followed by spectators around the world. Both Clinton and Trump have corporate ties based in New York and were friends in the past — Hillary and Bill Clinton attended Trump’s wedding and their daughters, Chelsea and Ivanka, are friends. Until 2011, when he made a run for presidential office, Trump’s federal and statewide election donation record showed 54 percent of his donations going to the Democratic Party. At first, many conspiracy theorists considered Trump’s candidacy as a blessing in disguise for his good friend Hillary. But now, when Trump and Clinton are soon to be head-to-head for the general election in November, people are no longer dismissing his nomination as a ridiculous attempt to hand Clinton the presidency. Furthermore, the race is getting uglier and more personal, especially in terms of sexist undertones.
Ever since announcing her run for the presidency last year in April, former Secretary of State and First Lady Clinton has been the subject of sexist commentary on topics ranging from her cold demeanor to her shrill voice and even her aggressive negotiating style. Given a male candidate with these traits, different adjectives would be used, such as “measured,” “engaged” or “uncompromising leader.” Starting her career with the Children’s Defense Fund, Clinton has proven herself as a progressive with the actions to back her ideology, including healthcare reform during her time as First Lady, LGBTQIA rights abroad and at home as Secretary of State and long term support of women’s rights as human rights.
This prevalence of sexist commentary directed towards Clinton came to light after Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward described Clinton as “screaming” and communicating in an unrelaxed way. This harsh criticism, as many female senators on the Hill pointed out, was a double standard given Trump’s “braggadocio” in issuing bombastic, sexist insults. Trump’s feud with conservative commentator Megyn Kelly especially comes to mind. He referred to Kelly as having “blood coming out of her wherever” when she confronted him about his previous language toward women. Trump’s misogyny is even more problematic with each passing day as his plan for the upcoming debates in the fall includes hitting Hillary on Bill’s infidelities while in the White House.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect, not even close to it. Despite her debatable track record, it is disheartening that her rival presidential candidate chooses to highlight her husband’s personal shortcomings as a projection of her character in the 21st century. But what is expected from a man who attacked the appearance of the wife of his former opponent?
Although there seems to be no stopping Trump’s sexist remarks, campaign donations show that it might be costing him. When commenting on his major victories on April 26, he made his infamous and trending “women card” statement. “And frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card. And the beautiful thing is women don’t like her, okay? And look how well I did with women tonight.” This enabled the Clinton campaign to capitalize on the buzzword. “Women card” became the impetus for thousands of contributions, totaling $2.4 million dollars within three days.
Dismissing Clinton’s extensive political leadership and degrading her by insinuating she is playing the “women card” serves only to paint Trump as a sexist brute. Are his comments an attempt at appealing to men who cannot grasp the idea of a woman competent enough to run for the highest office in the nation? Politicians all tailor their messages to appeal to target demographics. But Trump’s persistent misogyny and its intensification as we approach the general election illustrates a systematic double standard within our society. Instead of judging candidates based on their political experience — or lack thereof in the case of Trump — we are more concerned with issues that divide us like personal relationships and scandal. Perhaps, Trump is intimidated by the prospect of a female candidate who has better credentials than him and deflects through misogynistic means. But is that not a more reflection of our society than it is of Trump? As a businessman, he is merely marketing himself to voters.
As the two candidates close in on each other, it will be interesting to see how far Trump will take his sexism. Currently, it seems to be a weak point that the Clinton campaign has pounced upon. Regardless of the sexism conversation, it will do both candidates well to focus on actual issues and experience rather than smearing each other with insults stemming from sexism or in response to it. Instead of letting the ugliness of misogyny and smear tactics engulf the general election, as citizens and voters, it is up to us to turn the topic of conversation to real issues that matter. Only if we stop consuming gossip fodder about extramarital affairs and other trivial issues that Trump throws at us, can we actually consider Clinton as a bonafide candidate with formidable achievements but most importantly, a woman with the gall to run for president in a world of double standards and hypocrisy.
