> It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders.
You know that is emphatically not the kind of statement that people were concerned with when they were talking about Trump's sexism.
You know that is emphatically not the kind of statement that people were concerned with when they were talking about Trump's sexism.
What I think is sexist is the outsized hate campaign that has dogged Hillary since she became first lady. She's not notably worse by any metric than John Kerry but she receives way more vitriol.
People were saying she was literally Satan. And Bernie voters were saying she was unacceptable due to being a corrupt sellout establishment candidate, but again... John Kerry didn't receive anywhere near the level of hate.
It's a tough issue to argue though, because I'm not saying it's black and white: I'm not saying haters would've supported her if she was a man. It's more of a matter of degree: the anger and malice toward her would've been less if she was a man. The tenor of people's opposition would've been different.
For that reason I don't think you're awful if you don't believe me. There's enough ambiguity that I think you can say "let's call it an open question and focus on more irrefutable examples of sexism".
But the reason so many women are upset is this is exactly the kind of sexism they face evety day: subtle sexism that is difficult to prove, but when experienced over several decades feels undeniable.
*Edit to those who want to downvote me, please reconsider. I am asking a serious question, not trying to argue for no reason.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megy...
And here is a long list of examples compiled by the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexis...
The only sexism I've seen this election has been from the hillary camp. Wouldn't it be nice to have a female president? wink wink