Hillary plays the gender card

Article here. Excerpt:

'Of course, with her deep connections to Saudi sheiks and Silicon Valley squillionaires, you might mistake her for the kind of person the deck is stacked in favour of. But never mind. It’s the image that counts!

Ms. Clinton’s only claim to underdog status is that she’s a woman. The last time she ran for president, she played this down because she thought it was a liability. This time, she’s going to milk it for all it’s worth. So don’t expect to hear a lot about foreign policy for now. (All things considered, that may be just as well.) Instead, you will be hearing a lot about the joys of being a grandmother.
...
... In the interview, Chelsea explains there are two reasons why her mom deserves to be president. First, because it would be a major breakthrough for women everywhere. Second, because the world would be a better place if women were in charge. Women, she says, have been able “to build more consensus so that decisions have longer-term effects, whether in economic investments or in building social capital.”

The idea that women lead differently than men – and also better – is much in vogue these days. They’re more caring and compassionate. They believe in compromise and consensus, not conflict and power struggles. These skills are said to be crucial in a world that’s becoming networked, not hierarchical. Women are supposed to be naturally better at soft power (diplomacy, negotiation, relationship-building), when soft power is what our age needs most. In other words: Hillary would make sure those old boys get along!

Are women innately better at this stuff than men? Personally, I have yet to see it. What’s amusing is that after decades of denying that there are any innate differences at all between the sexes, modern feminists are now asserting the same type of gender essentialism that they used to deplore when men did it. We’ve come full circle!'