The Clintons and the Feminist Sell-Outs

klimt-girlfriends.jpg

Yesterday I was reading The Economist article “Hillary Clinton, Her latest incarnation: presidential front-runner“. This does a very good job of describing Hillary’s strengths and weakness and explains why she is presently in the best position to win America’s top political post. The way things look, Hillary will most likely win the primaries and become the Democrat’s candidate. Some pundits say that Hillary can beat Obama but would lose to Giuliani, whereas Obama would lose to Hillary but beat Giuliani. Who knows? Personally, I would prefer to see Obama win the national elections, not because I am per se in favor of his positions, but I think that the U.S. does not need two things that a Hillary victory would bring to the American political scene: (i) more divisiveness (especially after George W.’s divisiveness) and (ii) further another political dynasty (adding the Clinton’s to the Bush’s and Kennedy’s).

In any event, what really caught my attention in The Economist’s article was the following sentence: “[Hillary] is lionised by feminists and demonised by cookie-baking traditionalists.” This reminded me of something that really upset me back in 1998-99 during the whole Clinton-Lewinsky comedy — how Feminists abandoned their core beliefs to blindly follow both Bill and Hillary.

Let me start by saying that I personally share many of the core feminists’ tenets. So, when Bill Clinton not only violated most of the basic rules of Attorney professional conduct through his attempts to keep Monica Lewinsky from testifying in the Paula Jones case, I was not only personally offended as a newly admitted lawyer to the practice of law, but I was also offended by the general chauvinistic modus operandi of the President.

If you look at the basic facts, feminists should have immediately abandoned President Clinton:

  1. He called Ms. Lewinsky, “that woman”, as if she were another lying, self-interested female conspirator.
  2. He consistently used his superior position of power as a means to seduce his employees. If we consider sexual relations between two people as an agreement between people who have equal bargaining power, then isn’t any sexual relationship between a superior and an insubordinate per se unequal? From a feminist point of view, isn’t there inherent sexual harassment?
  3. How would President Clinton or feminists feel about any 50 year old CEO receiving sexual favors from their 22 year old daughters?
  4. Even after Clinton’s own manicured definition of “sexual relations” as mutual stimulation of the genitals of both parties and his testimony that, as based on this definition, no sex actually occurred, wouldn’t Clinton’s own self-centered sexual habits (only he received pleasure from Ms. Lewinsky) indicate his egocentric chauvinism? Wouldn’t a man who respected women also seek to pleasure Ms. Lewinsky?
  5. President Clinton repeatedly justified his alleged “obstruction of justice” as having been in response to Ms. Jones’ unfounded and frivolous lawsuit. But if the President shared his feminist constituents’ beliefs and trusted the legal system, he would have allowed justice to run its normal course instead of trying to impede a woman’s right to bring a sexual harassment case against her employer.
  6. President Clinton’s marital infidelity and Senator Clinton’s acceptance thereto indicate that their marriage is strictly of political convenience.

So, why do the feminists blindly support both Bill and Hillary? Is it that the ends justify the means? Is it that the political alternative is so bad that they will sacrifice their beliefs for political gains? I remember feeling disgusted seeing the Susan Sarandons and Barbara Streisands publicly rallying in favor of Bill. Is it that easy to forget one’s self? Is preaching better than practicing? In politics, do words speak louder than politics?

If the Lewinsky scandal had a happy ending, it was that the personal sexual lives of politicians were no longer considered so scandalous. So, why didn’t Hillary wait until after her husband’s presidency to divorce him? Maybe the focus groups showed that she was more electable when married than divorced? Maybe Bill and Hillary simply have a very open relationship. Who knows? The nice thing is that no one, especially not the feminists, seem to care.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Essays, Obama 08

7 responses to “The Clintons and the Feminist Sell-Outs

  1. TheCommentKiller

    I was just saying the same thing to someone yesterday (i think Uncle Louie) that i supported the impeachment of Clinton, not b/c of the lying, but b/c men in power should not take advantage of women below them.

    I also agree w/ your comments regarding dynasties.

    Beyond that I think it is somewhat incorrect to group or categorize Hillary and Bill together, particularly regarding political issues and positions.

    I also think it is tricky to group feminist together as one group. Having worked in an office for three years that was 98% super-lefty females that all considered themselves feminists, they all very different political views and they younger they were the more the self-identified w/ being a lefty first and feminist 2nd. And I agree that there was also a correlation b/t those that self-identified as feminist and their support of Ms. Clinton, but not b/c she is a woman, but b/c her policies and history are not only better (than the rest of the pack, including Obama), but much more concrete, well-thought out and detailed. Whereas, Obama (and the rest of the pack) just have general ideas, not detailed policies.

    But the main point of the previous paragraph is that there is definitely not a blind following of feminists to Ms. Clinton. And it certainly is not a categorical following, as many feminist (particularly the younger ones) remain undecided, i think that is a reflection of the concerns that leftys have in general, namely: do any of these people actually represent us? Is so it becomes (as usual) not who you think is the best candidate, but which one is lesser of all of the evils.

    I personally do not support Ms. Clinton, Obama or any of the clowns that have a shot a winning in 2008. They are all beholden to that Corporate money and at the end of the day neither Clinton or Obama (who will win in 2008 barring another terrorist attack on U.S. soil) really won’t change things much, but their constituents are the same as Bush and his predecessors- Big Corporations.

    It’s the bullet or the ballot

  2. Good topic, and well written.

    Although I have no respect for feminists or feminism because the empiricism of proscribed gender roles from genetics carries more weight with me, your points are nonetheless valid for your perspective.

    Obama and Hiliary are both the worst kind of oligarchic socialists, deceivers with agendas to ameliorate themselves above the ‘needs’ of the citizenry, there isn’t any reason to find Guiliani trustworthy either.

    Although this is of great interest, in the end, all points become moot. At the moment that the American citizens closed their eyes, and turned their backs, to the spirit of the Constitution, they became enablers of career politicians ~ and the Republic is now entering into the entropic slide to decay.

    In some respects, is it also amusing, because how often does history repeat itself and how many great civilisations have fallen in the same manner.

    The feminism you speak of is one of the telling chinks in the armor of a country. When social contract policy is changed to afford the falsified appearance of ‘equality’, ‘sameness’ and ‘fairness’, the minds of people become clouded with misrepresentations. Marx had it all wrong, Machiavelli had it right.

    Without the strength to uphold the unpleasant facts that we are not all the same, the citizens lose their lucidity. It takes strong leadership, willing to do the unacceptable to rectify the problems, and America lost its leadership capabilities with the passing of our grandparents generation.

    This upcoming election will be exactly like watching mindless, angry children arguing over a bucket of candy. And none will be the wiser to its happening.

    Only thing left to do is sit back and laugh.

  3. eric

    CommentKiller,

    OK, I fully accept the criticism. Yes, “feminists” (whatever that term really means) do not actually vote in blocks or are segmented voters. Nevertheless, I simply did not see or hear any “feminist” outcries against Bill Clinton’s behavior or Hillary’s response to it. That is my main criticism.

  4. TheCommentKiller

    Eric,

    I generally agree w/ that; and was equally disturbed by this in 1998, but i was more disappointed w/ the left in general.

  5. I asked one of the militant feminists here at work cugino, and they say you have it all wrong:

    Real feminists would never has sided with Lewinski because she made a choice to subjugate herself sexually to a man for an agenda of reciprocity … or in the words of the lady herself:

    “feminists don’t support trifflin’ skanks … either one of them” LMAO. Lewinski wasn’t a victim in any fashion according to feminists, especially since her father bought her that position in the first place.

  6. TheCommentKiller

    I don’t think i ever stated the actual ‘feminist” position on the subject, just my own opinion. Nor do i think there is an official feminist position, nor will there position affect mine.

    Nevertheless, there is nothing like a little inductive reasoning.

  7. Sorry CK, the comment was actually directed at this statement:

    OK, I fully accept the criticism. Yes, “feminists” (whatever that term really means) do not actually vote in blocks or are segmented voters. Nevertheless, I simply did not see or hear any “feminist” outcries against Bill Clinton’s behavior or Hillary’s response to it. That is my main criticism.

    feminism
    1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (this part is the lie, that’s not what it means in the mind of a feminist)

    2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests(this part is incomplete, there’s more depth to it than given, but I tried)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s