We've all heard it, many progressive men tell me, "Ahh Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her". Elizabeth Warren is the election year "Acceptable Woman", even though she isn't running.   Thanks, good to know who the Acceptable Woman is as deemed by mostly white men.

What those men don't understand is, even at times in her life Warren has been the unacceptable woman, every woman has been the unacceptable woman. We pushed it too far, we gave too much of our opinion, we didn't defer enough, we were unacceptable. The Unacceptable Woman this year and for many years had been Hillary Clinton. She is running and has a good chance to be President so the attacks on her character have been deep and sustained, they have been personal and insulting. The sustained attacks against Hillary Clinton are attacks that most women have endured universally. Not that we are running for the Presidency, but that we are always doubted and credit for our achievements are discounted,  we have endured the same attacks at one time or another in our lives. No woman escapes it, not one of us.  So the attacks seem personal they hit far too close to home. When progressives use right wing attacks on the only woman democratic candidate, I wonder why. I become appalled. I can't believe this is what the election is coming down to on the progressive side, deeply institutionally sexist attacks. I find them enraging and unacceptable, 

While I am not voting for Clinton merely because she is a woman, in part I do think that it is time for a woman and HRC isn't just any woman, she has real accomplishments. She was Senator from New York, a Secretary of State, a First Lady, and unabashed liberal. I hope everyone reads the most excellent FiveThirtyEights article about Clinton as unabashed liberal.  Believe it or not, facts do matter.  I say this all, while not denying that Sander is also a liberal! Oh yes, they are equals here, they are equals. Why is that so hard to imagine that some of us see her as his equal, completely and totally.  According to the Enten article Clinton was one of the most liberal in the Senate.  Read the entire article it's very informative, and should ease the pains of those who believe HRC is some closet Republican lite.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Yet  according to so many progressive men and some women, Clinton isn't trustworthy, and she is just a corporate shill Republican lite.  I guess her actual record doesn't count, while the man in the race, Sanders, his voting record does count he is a liberal and even if his record on guns isn't the best the rest tell us he is a liberal.  But she can't be trusted, not even the factual review of her voting record tells us anything about her, because she is hiding her Republicanism, even if we can't see it, she just simply can't be trusted. Why is that? Is it really because she is ambitious? Do men really hate ambitious women?  My husband really loves me, and I am quite ambitious. I don't understand, because men are allowed to be ambitious, even Sanders is allowed to be outwardly ambitious.

I continue to try to figure our what it takes to be the Acceptable Woman in the crowd of progressive men who love Bernie. I get that you love your candidate, I just wonder why you have to often resort to very sexist attacks to support your candidate and then never admit they attacks are sexist in nature. I have read much on this site alone of Unacceptable Women being referred to in ways that are completely unacceptable.  HRC's anecdotes of her life have been doubted and even when women point out we've all had the same experiences, progressive men dismiss that, and make claims there is no way someone who married a future President can lay claim to the everywoman mantle, even though Sanders is the everyman. Each detail of her life is doubted out of hand, men don't suffer that constant drone of doubt about their lives. 

Hillary of course has contributed most greatly to improving the lives of impoverished woman and children. It is what she dedicated herself to from the beginning of her career, yet she gets no credit for all of the things she has done for those causes. We've discussed CHIP at length and yet she gets not credit. I have to tell you, women go through their lives not getting proper credit for their hard work. She is the everywoman and she is the Acceptable Woman to many of us.  She has worked hard, she is smart, she continues to learn and evolve, but she is being held to a different standard, the standard that no woman can achieve, because she is no the Acceptable Woman.  I guess when we recognize there is such a thing as institutional sexism and only then can we make strides to change that, one great change of course is the election of a woman president. Not just any woman either a very accomplished woman in her own right, who possesses all the character traits needed to be President of the United States.

The more virulent the attacks on HRC's character, the more I not only identify with her, but the more I want to outwardly defend her, support her, talk to other women, teach you all a lesson, because she represent our experience in a way you can never know. We are witnessing it presently, we are competent and smart and can do the job and have big difficulties getting the men in charge to accept those facts.

Some additional reading:

Gender and Language: Challenging the Sterotypes

Language and Gender and Advanced Resource Book.

Institutional Sexism is Closer to Home than you Think

Institutional Sexism

Everyday Sexism

PS I reserve the right to come back and edit for clarity.