• Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Disagree. For one, it’d be an underwhelming point as a historic marker if it’s the only option. And two, we haven’t gotten a female president yet cuz the women we keep running are shit candidates. Sexism is absolutely a factor, but I don’t think it compares to the absolute fuckton of baggage (actual or perceived - doesn’t matter) that comes with Hillary, or Harris’s last minute embrace of Israel’s genocide.

    We haven’t actually tried running a woman who’s also a decent human being. AOC would wipe the floor with her opponent’s face, regardless of that opponent’s gender.

    • Ech@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Eh, it doesn’t have to be the most stupendous, amazing victory for women to be important and good. Two female candidates would still be a huge deal, assuming proper primaries were conducted. That said, I would be astounded if the Republican nominee is a woman any time soon.

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yeah, fair enough.

        And who fuckin knows on the Republican nominee… I’m sure if MTG says enough slurs, or stomps on enough puppies, or shoots enough kindergartens, etc, on live TV the republican voter base could be persuaded to overlook the fact that she’s a woman. She’s already got behaving like a fucking dumbass down to a science, and the R’s love that shit, so… as Republican standards go for presidential material go, she checks a lot of the boxes.