Ms. Shulz, I’d like to offer some sincerely constructive criticism. I’m definitely on your side here; I recently published a long story arguing that Ms. Clinton was the finest candidate to come along in a long time. I shall criticize what I think are mistakes that weaken the power of your arguments.
First, lose the sexism. Women are not better than men, nor are men better than women. Some women are better than some men in some dimensions, and vice versa. Everybody’s different, and everybody has some tiny form of talent in which they’re very, very good. You make some grand generalizations about men and women that serve only to make you look silly.
Second, drop the conspiracy theory nonsense expressed in this statement of yours:
“Workplace harassment was common and men were happy to continue it because it reinforced the power structure…”
Men don’t abuse women as some kind of secret conspiracy; they do it because they’re assholes. Most men aren’t assholes, but there are enough assholes out there to make life miserable for many women.
Third, cut down on wild statements like this:
“Only a woman can beat Trump.”
You wrote at great length about various advantages that women have over men, but your arguments do not justify your conclusion. The question of who can beat Mr. Trump is immensely important, and the Internet teems with arguments addressing this question from every possible angle. To sweep aside all those arguments with such a simplistic assertion undermines the truths of your essay.
We have a huge field of Democratic candidates to consider. I see no reason why we should differentiate them based on race, color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. Isn’t it fabulous that we can choose among candidates representing every one of these dimensions? Let’s give them all plenty of time to present themselves to us, so that we can weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each one. Until then, let’s keep an open mind, OK?