Young liberal women might be feeling the Bern, but older liberal women are setting their sights on Hillary Clinton for president. A lot of it has to do with the set of obstacles faced in the workplace as women get older.
I’ll admit that until the Gloria Steinem fiasco, the notion of women getting more radical as we get older was new to me. I mean, how much more radical can I get? As the article points out, middle-aged women tend to experience sexism differently than younger women, which has an effect on voting in the Democratic race for president. “For college-age women — Mr. Sanders’s female base — sexism tends to be linked to sex.” In other words, reproductive rights as well as slut-shaming and body policing.
For women who have more experience in the work force, priorities change. Though we can start out pretty evenly with men in terms of income and opportunity that equality lessens. “By 35, those same college-educated women are making 15 percent less than their male peers. Women’s earnings peak between ages 35 and 44 and then plateau, while men’s continue to rise.” A lot of it has to do with women still being expected to raise a family and make more sacrifices in their careers because of it.
For reasons like these, Clinton is seen as the more powerful candidate. A woman in one of the highest seats of power will do more to enact effective change in the way women are viewed and represented than another male candidate winning, no matter how qualified or more radical that man is. I still haven’t made up my mind over the two, but I will admit the article makes a compelling pro-Hillary argument.
At the end of the day, we can all agree on one thing: anyone but Trump.