Playing the Woman Card



My husband actually spotted a bumper sticker saying “Trump that bitch” the other day.  Nice to see people keepin’ it classy.

As you’ve undoubtedly heard by now, Trump accused Hillary of playing the “woman card.” (He also suggested she lacked stamina, an odd — if phallically-loaded — criticism to level at someone who’s been campaigning tirelessly for eleven months.) Look, this is not that hard to understand: a woman running for president, who advocates for women as part of her platform, is not playing a “card” that gives her some kind of unfair advantage over her oh-so-meritocratic male opponents. See Jill Filipovic’s excellent NYT op-ed piece on how Donna Edwards was accused of playing the “race card” in her Senate campaign simply for talking about her life story, and how women and minority candidates are accused of playing a ”card” simply by virtue of who they are.



«
»


  • Krausewitz

    When asked how she would be different to Obama in one of the debates Hillary Clinton answer “Well, I’m a woman…”. If there is such a thing as ‘the woman card’ is that not it? Could you imagine Barack Obama saying something like that in 2008? Never.

    I don’t think there’s any problem with Hillary pointing out her sex and making the case for her historic campaign/presidency….but you cannot objectively argue that she has not overtly pointed to her gender as a reason to vote for her. How many times has she referenced ‘the dreams of little girls everywhere’ or something to that effect? How many times have her *supporters* done so?

    Again, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, and yes we are long overdo for a female president. No reasonable person could argue that. However, we should still be able to call a spade a spade even if it once in a blue moon means partially agreeing with something Trump said.

    • catherine todd

      Krausewitz: So you think Hillary should NOT have said “I am a woman?” Do you think this isn’t true or means she would not understand certain things?

      I have said “As a woman, I believe in equal pay.” Does that mean you would “partially agree with Trump” because I said that?

      I’m really not clear on what you are saying. Is a black person supposed to NOT say “As a black person, I can identify with issues that affect people of color?”

      And this is means you are “calling a spade a spade?” Hard to comprehend your meaning here.

      • Krausewitz

        I can see quite clearly that you do not understand what I am saying. I can try to explain again, although I’m doubtful it will make any difference.

        The difference here is that Hillary used her gender related to issues that are totally gender-neutral. Again, when she explicitly states that she will be different from Obama exclusively because of her gender she is insulting the American electorate. One’s ideas should determine their suitability for office, not their physical attributes (Trump’s small hands notwithstanding).

        Think back to 2008…how many times did Obama explicitly lean on his race to try to gain electoral favour? I can’t think of even a single instance. Hillary Clinton has used her gender as both shield and sword in this election in a way (and with a frequency) I’ve never seen anyone do before. Once in a while would be fine, but when this is done all the time it actually obscures her policy positions (which I think was part of the point…).

        A person’s gender/race/religion/etc. should have no bearing on their policy outlook. I do not support pay equality and paid maternity leave for all workers because I am a man….I support these things because I’m human. I do not support LGBT equality because I am myself LGBT…I support their rights because I am a human and think we should all share in equal rights. The same is true for universal healthcare, universal paid vacation, affordable college, etc. etc.

        My gender does not impact my policy beliefs, and your gender should not influence yours. If we cannot detach ourselves and view things objectively then there really is no hope….we’ll forever be tiny warring tribes incapable of truly working together to accomplish anything of real value.

  • Poet

    I know that many of the subjects that you address are serious and need to be taken that way. Still, I must compliment you on your occasionally “off the wall” humorous asides. In “Playing the Woman Card” it is the zoned out woman TV watcher obeying her “lady parts” with the reply “yes your egg-cellency”. Also the guy in the final panel with the shirt “Trump that B*tch” declaring “It takes stones to point this stuff out”.

    There are plenty of other real reasons to oppose Hillary than her gender. Such annoying asides are nothing but a smoke and mirrors distraction from people who have nothing of substance to say..

    • catherine todd

      Sorry, but I don’t know what you are saying. What is the “annoying asides are nothing but a smoke and mirrors distraction from people who have nothing of substance to say..” you are referring to?

      • Poet

        Hi Catherine!
        The annoying asides to which I referred were:
        The figure whose t-shirt declared “Trump that B*tch”
        The Trumpism that Hillary was “playing the woman card”

        Hillary Clinton (despite her last name happening to be the same as her husband, a former president) is as grossly incompetent as her opponent.
        The incompetence I am referring to is:
        Her violation of state department regulations that saw her putting classified documents on her very own private email server (tantamount to espionage).
        Her incompetence concerning Libya which saw the US ambassador killed as a result.
        The fiasco of her health care reform efforts in her husband’s first term.
        None of this has anything to do with her gender but everything to do with her ability to lawfully administer the US government.
        Fortunately for Hillary,she has a principle opponent who is stupid as she is crooked. Trump is the person “with nothing of substance to say”. All he can do is make inane comments about Hillary playing the woman’s card.

        Over and out–

  • Alan Barta

    With Trump you get a total buffoon, but, then again, so was Dubya, who all but destroyed the presidency. With Clinton, you get a twofer, former and newly elected presidents, but of whom have decades of foreign policy experience, which Trump has none of. That said, what is wrong with America that they can’t run anyone truly deserving of the office? In a choice among prominent women Clinton, Coulter or Palin, seems difficult to consider anyone but Hillary. Liz Warren, however, is a female Bernie Sanders.

  • Alan Barta

    With Trump you get a total buffoon, but, then again, so was Dubya, who all but destroyed the presidency. With Clinton, you get a twofer, former and newly elected presidents, both of whom have decades of foreign policy experience, which Trump has none of. That said, what’s wrong with America that they can’t run anyone truly deserving of the office? In a choice among prominent women Clinton, Coulter or Palin, seems difficult to consider anyone but Hillary. Liz Warren, however, is a female Bernie Sanders.

  • Robinanna neibauer

    With Trump, you get a fascist, with Hillary, you get a corrupt corporate shill. Forget it, I want Bernie Sanders.

Jen Sorensen is a nationally-published political cartoonist. She is a 2017 Pulitzer Finalist and recipient of the 2014 Herblock Prize and a 2013 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award.

Archives