Today someone commented (not here) that they were tired of people judging Hillary as agressive and war-mongering and claimed that this would not happen if she was a man and that it's completely irrelevant. I beg to differ. I actually think that how aggressive or hawk-like Hillary would be as a President *is* a live issue and one that I also judge other candidates by.
The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.
It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.
So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.