That's because you don't listen hard enough. Maybe if I quote a source you might actually respect... You like Al Jazeera right?
There’s a strong feminist case for Hillary Clinton
(
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/theres-a-strong-feminist-case-for-hillary-clinton.html)
"We’re currently being bombarded with stories about how
feminists are voting for Sanders (a claim not backed up by any actual data) or how Clinton
isn’t a feminist or
killed feminism (often upheld by people long hostile to feminism, making one wonder about their sudden investment in its fate).
But let’s not forget that before Clinton was an insufficient feminist, she was too much of a feminist.
She contorted herself into the roles demanded of her throughout her husband’s scandals, then hers, staying solidly left-of-center but tamping down the feminist bombast. She downplayed gender in her 2008 campaign, perhaps not wanting to marginalize voters uncomfortable with a woman in power. Today she’s running for president not just as a woman but also as an advocate for women’s rights — and yet she’s still portrayed as somehow lacking.
[...]
When it comes to women’s rights specifically, Clinton has real experience and a track record. She has long been in favor of abortion rights, occasionally moderating her rhetoric to capture a wider audience. (Despite what some might contend, embracing her husband’s line that abortion should be “
safe, legal and rare” is hardly an anti-abortion stance.) She came out in
support of both repeal of the
Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion care for low-income women, and for U.S. funding for abortion care for rape victims in conflict zones — not exactly positions with a ton of historic popularity among mainstream politicians.
She has the backing of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America, the biggest pro-abortion-rights groups in the country. If you’re still not convinced, watch
this video of Clinton testifying before Congress about reproductive rights. Those are hardly words of an inadequate pro-abortion-rights candidate.
Clinton has also been an advocate for paid family leave, a child care tax credit and universal prekindergarten, all issues that would make an enormous difference in the lives of women and their families — especially low-income women, including working-class millennial women who, unlike their wealthier counterparts, are more likely to forgo college or have children earlier or without a husband. Sanders, for all of his talk of inequality, doesn’t fold gender or race into the equation that often. His promise of free college is great but won’t do much for the many women for whom college isn’t a priority or isn’t on the radar."
And just for good measure, here is another
Why I’m Supporting Hillary Clinton, With Joy and Without Apologies
(
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-im-supporting-hillary-clinton-with-joy-and-without-apologies/)
"I think there are few issues as radical as advancing the reproductive autonomy of women. And I think it’s hard to be truly establishment when dangerous men are shooting up your clinics, and the Republican Congress is persistently voting to strip you of your funding. Yes, Planned Parenthood and NARAL have worked hard to become respected political players in the last 30 years, because the women they represent need political clout, not just services. But I’m old enough to remember when feminists were told that our issues—“cultural” issues like abortion and contraception—were costing Democrats elections, so couldn’t we pipe down for a little while? Now we’re the establishment?
Just like my lefty friends who praise Sanders for loudly promoting the single-payer solution to healthcare because it’s important to raise the issue’s standing and profile,
I praise Clinton for making repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars Medicaid from paying for abortion for poor women, a major public campaign issue. I acknowledge Sanders has voted the right way, and I’m grateful for it.
But Clinton is leading on it, the same way she brought up the vile Planned Parenthood video hoax in the very first Democratic debate. That leadership matters to me.[...]
I’ve come to feel passion for Clinton herself, and for what I see as a movement that supports her, even though only Sanders is judged a “movement” candidate. I believe she’s evolved back to be the progressive Democrat she used to be, more progressive than her liberal husband. Some of my feelings remain defensive, but in a warmer sense: I really don’t want to see her abused again. I’m tired of seeing her confronted by entitled men weighing in on her personal honesty and likability, treating the most admired woman in the world like a woman who’s applying to be his secretary. I’m stunned anew by the misogyny behind the attacks on her, and her female supporters, including my daughter. I’m sick of the way so many Sanders supporters, most of them men, feel absolutely no compunction to see things through female Clinton supporters’ eyes, or to worry they might have to court us down the road, take special care not to alienate us lest we sit the race out in November, if our candidate loses."