The entire appeal to women for Clinton by some of her folks is kinda tone-deaf, in my humble observation. It&#x27;s basically saying &quot;Hey, this person is a woman, you&#x27;re a woman, therefore you should vote for her.&quot; This is the exact same sort of oversimplification pandering and objectification that a lot of women have fought very hard to separate themselves from.<p>Additionally, the increasingly hardline message of &quot;Fuck men because men&quot; from certain radical feminists, both internet nutjobs and old-guard aging intellectuals, is not something that appeals to Millenials.<p>Sanders doesn&#x27;t rely on messages of hate, and doesn&#x27;t rely on playing one population off against another. There&#x27;s only one person who can do that effectively in the current race, and it&#x27;s Trump.<p>EDIT:<p>(updated a little wording above on the first paragaph)<p>The article, in my opinion rightly, points out a good point: there really isn&#x27;t the same sort of systematic bias in the workplace and economy and culturally that there used to be (in the United States). Objectives achieved, one would expect the second-wave feminists to settle into the long haul to mop-up the last holdouts and to make sure that the next generation was vigilant to prevent backslides and to appreciate what they&#x27;d gotten.<p>Instead, it seems that third-wave and later feminism failed to consolidate those gains and has instead begun descending into self-parody and besmirching the good name of feminism. This timing happened to coincide with the rise of social media, and as we all know, that makes the problem of isolating a movement&#x27;s more radical elements even harder and serves to discourage moderate participation.