Sally Haslanger on gender in the election

Just a small taste:

There are many things that might be said about the androcentrism of the U.S. political system and the ways it rewards masculinity. Masculinity, of course, is associated with strength, courage, protection, and violence (as needed); femininity is associated with care, upkeep, negotiation, peacekeeping. Although national security is a reasonable concern in a presidential election, one could argue that, in Jane Addams’ words, civic housekeeping is at least as important for the well-being of our country as defense (Haslanger 2016).

Yet how much do Clinton’s decades of work on children’s rights, health care, and environmental protection count as qualifications for president, compared to Trump’s alleged business success, built upon unfettered self-interest and aggression toward any threat? Are Clinton’s strengths too feminine? Has she developed hawkish values in order to compete for the office of “top man”? Clinton is caught in a double bind: If she appears feminine, then due to androcentrism, she isn’t suited to office; if she appears masculine, then due to misogyny, she must be corrected or punished.

Read the whole thing!

What Feminist Epistemology Would Say to Donald Trump

By Miranda Pilipchuk:

Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States in June 2015, the internet has exploded with reports and analyses of the candidate, with a special emphasis placed on the shocking and dramatic statements Trump has made the forefront of his campaign. As of yet, however, there has been relatively little attention paid to what feminist epistemology has to say about Trump, and his shocking and dramatic statements. This blog post is a small attempt to remedy this gap in the conversation, focusing specifically on Trump’s position as an epistemically privileged subject, and how this epistemic privilege shapes Trump’s approach to the truth.

Read on!

Why was this the breaking point?

Kate Manne:

are Republicans finally rejecting Trump for his misogyny as such, or rather for being kind of disgusting, in a way which just so happened to be misogyny? The misogyny has of course been instrumentally useful for Republicans to harp on, since it gives them an easy out via moralistic outrage and the usual veneer of paternalism. (What about the women?) But I suspect it was the peculiar phraseology, creepy boastfulness, and all-around social awkwardness that probably bothered them more than anything — certainly more than what Trump actually does to women, which they had ample evidence of already. They still don’t give a flying proverbial about women as people, each one an individual with a mind, will, and body that belongs to her and no-one else. So Trump may be ousted as a misogynist in name only. And if Pence does succeed him, our prospects are no better.