Hating Hillary: It’s a Guy Thing

If nothing else, Monday night’s big debate proved some Presidential turds should be polished while others should be flushed away. Donald Trump clearly proved he was in the latter category.

And yet, some Republican die-hards refuse to grasp this obvious reality. Both men and women of the GOP are still cheering Trump, still believing that his outrageously bad performance wasn’t really THAT bad. Still others, however, are clinging to this belief that Trump was actually pretty good. These deluded cheerleaders have two things in common: they want to make Trump look better by mercilessly criticizing Hillary Clinton, and over 95% of them are guys.

Of course, both men and women are criticizing Clinton, and both men and women are supporting her. But if you read the editorial pages in any newspaper, you’ll find the most scathing barbs and unfair criticism for Hillary Clinton is coming from the guys — not from girls or women.

Let’s face it. A lot of guys out there just don’t like strong, intelligent women who happen to be Democrats. And Hillary is one strong, intelligent Democrat. And I’m beginning to think that her intelligent competence must also bring back negative childhood memories for them.

Think about it. What kind of childhood memories do most men have of intelligent, competent, no-nonsense women with leadership qualities? Either such women were non-existent in their lives; or else, they were the tough teachers, mean librarians, or overly strict principals. So when I see so many men slamming Hillary for succeeding in the way she has, I think they still have serious issues about women and power.

What’s especially disturbing, though, is the way so many guys keep invalidating her when she accomplishes something good.
Case in point: A little op-ed from USA TODAY that was published on Wednesday, September 28th. Although it’s a short one from FACEBOOK.COM/USATODAYOPINION, it shows just how deep this misogynist bias can go: “No doubt that strictly on debating points, Clinton won. So what? Clinton had nothing new to bring to the table. It was the same old, worn out, socialist, progressive, Democratic policies that have dragged this country to its knees. The country needs new problem-solving and outsider remedies.”

Needless to say, a guy — one Roger Duncan — contributed this latest invalidation.

So what? If Trump had performed half as well as Hillary did in that debate, Roger and his Republican buddies would be doing a victory lap. But because Hillary Clinton won the debate, he had to immediately devalue anything she said or did. And of course, he had to trash the Democratic policies, too.

Funny thing, FDR’s New Deal was a socialist, progressive, Democratic solution to a lot of problems. I could also name a lot of other policies from the Democrats that elevated the standard of living in this country and helped numerous families with food, housing, education, work, and the pursuit of happiness. More importantly, such policies made it possible for Americans to never worry about things like chronic unemployment, homelessness, and bankruptcy from skyrocketing healthcare costs. But apparently, Roger is too focused on bashing Hillary to read about these great moments in social history.

So I would advise him and the other guys to go online and start getting some factual information every now and then.

Sometimes the most devastating criticism isn’t criticism at all. Ignoring and invalidating the good things someone does hurts more than criticizing the mistakes someone makes. For the past year I’ve been reading widespread invalidations about Hillary Clinton and her accomplishments in the editorial pages — and most of the invalidators have been men. Their childish rants only remind me why there’s still no equal pay for equal work and why there’s still a glass ceiling too many women can’t crack.

Maybe before Roger and the boys vote this year, they should get some therapy. Or else, leave their baggage outside the door of their polling place.