If You Think Hillary’s Not Honest, Well, You’re A Sexxxxxist

Much like raaaaacism, sexxxxxism can only be spelled with 5 x’s

On honesty issues, Hillary Clinton fights own missteps, gender stereotypes

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign may be a case study in the kind of missteps that can be particularly punishing for U.S. political candidates who are women.

Wait, did writer Heidi M Przybyla, and by extension, USA Today, just say that only women are the ones who would set up an against the rules server, destroy her Blackberry’s with a hammer, wipe said server when got caught, lie about it constantly, transmit classified information, sharing it with people who should not have access to the material, etc and so on? You know the story. She did things that would see the rest of us, and our subordinates, in jail. Are they claiming that only a woman would be this incompetent?

Or, perhaps they are referring to Hillary spending most of her time fundraising and hobknobbing with the uber-rich, charging their kids $2,700 to ask her a question? Or, maybe it’s the way she refuses to do press conferences? That she won’t ask questions of the press, and instead offers them chocolates?

Oh, wait, no, they’re claiming sexxxxxism

Just like society assumes most men are competent, the public gives women the benefit of the doubt on ethics and honesty, or a “virtue advantage,” according to a 2014 handbook titled Keys to Elected Office: The Essential Guide for Women that was updated earlier this year. The handbook, published by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, is based on 20 years of research on public perceptions of female candidates. So when that perception’s tarnished, the results for women can be devastating, the handbook warns.

You see what they’re doing here: claiming that the public only makes a big deal over women on honesty. Seriously, Hillary having to lie and give carefully worded responses is due to sexxxxxism

The Guide stresses the importance of transparency and quickly admitting mistakes. As a candidate and public figure, Clinton has run contrary to much of this advice. Her carefully-worded responses to the uproar over her personal email system has been just the latest in a long line of examples of Clinton’s defensive posture exacerbating concerns about her trustworthiness.

See? It’s because you’re a sexist that she does this.

Anyhow, it’s a long, long article, which eventually delves into the reality of why 59% find her non-trustworthy, basically because she’s shady as hell. Period. Then ends up with the notion that people distrust Hillary because she’s a woman

“Though she (Hillary) has clearly brought some, maybe even a lot, of these questions on herself, it’s hard to escape the long history of questioning women’s trustworthiness,” said Regina Lawrence, co-author of Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail.  “There’s a deeply-embedded notion in Western culture that women should be and just naturally are more trustworthy and honest than men.  When a woman leader seems to violate that norm, it’s more noticeable and troubling to many people than when men do it.”

Or, it could simply be that she doesn’t deserve trust, because she’s broken it so many times. The question here, though, is will the media and Hillary supporters turn towards the sexxxxxism road in it’s defense of Hillary?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “If You Think Hillary’s Not Honest, Well, You’re A Sexxxxxist”

  1. Dana says:

    Oh, good grief! Every candidate faces opposition research, people trying to find some dirt on them to use against them in the campaign. Mrs Clinton’s defenders are claiming, essentially, that it’s sexist — sorry, sexxxxxist — to treat a female candidate in the same way a male candidate would be treated.

    The problem for Lurleen Wallace’s Mrs Clinton’s defenders isn’t that people have been looking for negative information on her; it’s that they’ve found so much, because there was so much to be found.

  2. john says:

    fortunately for us libs the GOP was able to find someone who actually has a higher rate of disapproval

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Wondering why that little guy who exaggerates often has been shitting himself lately?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton-5609.html#polls

  4. Jeffery says:

    Can Trump win Florida, NC, Ohio, Nevada and Wisconsin? That’s all he needs to add. MO hasn’t gone for a Dem since Clinton I.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    Nate Silver still has Clinton II the likely winner. Time will tell.

  5. Jeffery says:

    The Sag admitted he bribed the Fla AG not to investigate Trump “University”. It’s just how business is done.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pam-bondi-trump-university_us_57cf2c6ce4b0a48094a64854?section=&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

  6. gitarcerver says:

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

    Nothing more to see than another lie from Jeffery.

    His own citation doesn’t support his claim.

    Of course, when you look at the “editor’s note” at the end of the piece Jeffery cites, it is clear that there is no way in the world that the writer or the editor was going to do an unbiased piece based on the facts.

  7. drowningpuppies says:


    Nothing more to see than another lie from Jeffery.

    His own citation doesn’t support his claim.

    Just like all the little guy’s comments.
    He’s losing it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10024 access attempts in the last 7 days.