I have been recently bludgeoned into silence, but think I will say a few words anyway.
I am feeling a lot of nasty feminism around me, and Hillary is encouraging it.
During a debate, she was asked what would be revolutionary about her presidency, and she responded, “I’m a woman.” And the crowd went wild. I was disgusted. That was a serious question warranting a serious answer, and she reduced it to a punchline.
This militant defensiveness surprises me. Why doesn’t she embrace the successes of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and many others? There is no question that women can be strong leaders, can lead their countries into war, can figuratively lop off the heads of their opponents. America and Hillary Clinton are late to the test of female leadership, yet her supporters suggest that she is the proof we need that women can lead. What balderdash!
Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem castigated women who weren’t inclined to vote for Hillary, and then my Facebook page started to get nasty.
I have lived in and visited many countries where the policies promoted by Bernie Sanders are functioning, and I like what I have seen. In many of these countries, women have become prime ministers or otherwise powerful figures. Policies he espouses, like humane parental leave, free tuition in public universities, universal health care, and so on, have favored these women’s success.
Responses to my Facebook posts about Sanders have become increasingly virulent. Women tell me that I “don’t understand” how misogynistic the attacks on Hillary are. She is a “strong woman” who has stood up against attack. She “deserves” to be president. If I haven’t felt the misogyny, then I just haven’t been looking. I’m a WINO. I wrote that I found vocal fry ugly, and a female former linguistics professor of mine exploded in anger at me – people were always “putting women down” for the way they talked, and so on. I’d be interested in a linguistics research project about it, but I don’t have to enjoy listening to it. Bludgeoned into silence.
When someone asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg what the right number of female members on the Supreme Court would be, she said, “Nine.” Why not? We’ve had nine men forever. Maybe they will view the world differently, it’s worth finding out. I would love to have a female president; maybe Elizabeth Warren, or Kirsten Gillibrand, or Tulsi Gabbard, or Pramila Jayapal. Hillary is not my choice, not because she is a woman, but because I don’t like her policies and her past choices.
My most important objection is that Hillary, our likely future president, is weakened by leaning on the feminist crutch. Vladimir Putin won’t give a damn. The melting ice caps won’t give a damn either.Tags: hillary's feminism, nasty feminism, women's liberation