Misogyny in the election

I'm binge-watching the last two weeks of political coverage on The Daily Show and The Nightly Show while I export the YouTube versions of the last three episodes of Solarpunk Press, because I'm absurdly behind on doing that. And there's one aspect of the dialogue about Clinton and Trump that seems dramatically absent: misogyny.

Like, there's a fair amount of conversation about Hillary being the first woman president, but not much about why that's such a big deal -- why that's a hard thing to accomplish. Because the match-up of candidates in this election is absurd: On one side, we have probably the most qualified major-party nominee for the presidency in American history, and on the other side, we have probably the least-qualified.

And I don't think it's part of many people's conscious thought process, but I think many, many voters have a sense of misogyny baked into their intuition: their brains are just primed for the idea that any man in the office of the President would be better than every woman. That Hillary Clinton, one of the most accomplished politicians in the country, rises only to the level of slightly below the accomplishments of a former Reality TV show host who is also a man.

That's maybe even part of why Trump got the nomination: that many of the most bigoted republicans figure they don't need to vote strategically, because Hillary was "inevitable," and the misogynistic intuition there is that a woman couldn't possibly win the election, that the Republican nominee is a sure thing.

I think, deep down, many Americans' votes are not going to be "Trump vs Hillary," they're going to be "Trump vs a woman," and the patriarchal worldview these people hold says that women are fundamentally, platonically, incapable of being the better option in that matchup.