Feminism's cool, Hillary's kinda lame

During the recent Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton made several references to her gender, suggesting that her womanness differentiated her from other candidates. She even made a joke about how it takes her longer to go to the bathroom than the other candidates.

I must admit that the idea of having a female president is exciting to me. I agree with everything Clinton says about helping working mothers with paid sick leave, supporting Planned Parenthood and her long history of championing women’s rights, even when she was told to tone it down. And I know people who think a woman should not be president, or who have suggested that her husband’s affair somehow makes her a weak, unreliable, shady character. I find these arguments absurd, frustrating and reflective of prevailing sexism.

But being a woman isn’t enough for me, nor should it be for anyone. Clinton may be a woman, but she is also an extremely wealthy, privileged, straight white woman, who supported the ridiculously-named “Defense of Marriage Act.” Her gender is really the only groundbreaking thing about her.

Being a Democrat isn’t enough for me, either. During the debate, when Anderson Cooper asked Clinton how she could represent the interests of the middle class since she is a member of the top one percent of income earners, her response was that the economy does better when there is a Democrat in the White House. She also vilified the Republicans more than any other candidate, which, while justifiable, detracted from her actual policy ideas.

Essentially, it seems that Clinton is riding on two aspects of her candidacy: her gender, and her superior ability to beat a Republican candidate (at least according to most political commentators). Clinton demonstrated during the debate that she is a true politician; she is good at stating the obvious and insisting she is different from her opponents, without offering many innovative, groundbreaking policy ideas.

When I talk to my parents about the election, I get the sense that they would never consider supporting a candidate other than Clinton (cough, cough, Sanders). Their argument is that Sanders couldn't win the election even if he did win the Democratic nomination. Even though neither of them is excited about Clinton, knowing she likely wouldn’t change much in terms of the economy, foreign affairs or social benefit programs, they’re convinced she could beat a Republican, and they can’t say the same for Bernie. They know she is backed by corporations, hazy on environmental issues and was initially in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership as Secretary of State, a trade deal that will weaken important trade regulations that protect working-class people, consumers and the environment.

Of course, being pragmatic is important, and sometimes it’s necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. But if there are so many individuals who deep down support Sanders’ policies, as I believe my parents do, why are they so afraid to vote for him? How are they satisfied voting for a candidate who they know will continue the U.S.’s history of oppression abroad and domestically just because she is the lesser of two evils -- and happens to be a woman?