I did not know that Hillary was wearing blue contact lenses to make herself a blue-eyed blond.
I am wondering what our resident Feminsts think of the article here, which is a discussion of Hillary as a Second Wave Feminist, and how that has effected her relationship with men and how she projects herself.
There are a bazillions problems with this just in the first paragraph alone.
First of all, simply having a career does not automatically align anyone with anything. Women are people who go about their lives, not living political platforms onto which you can project whatever you want. We do not live our lives for the benefit of other people's soapboxes or masculine insecurity. We are not making a point simply by allowing ourselves to exist in public. We are just existing. It's people like this writer, and you, who are insisting on taking offence to our existence.
Secondly, if we're going to hold up Gloria Steinem as supposedly being a man-hater, then please explain to me why she married one. Any serious-minded reading of her work doesn't support any variation of the notion that she hated men or blamed men for everything.
Thirdly, saying that women do not require men to have their own lives is simply a fact, and the reverse is just as true (though no one ever questions the latter, which is why feminism doesn't address it -- men were already acknowledged as being self-sufficient people, whereas women were not, and some people get upset by the notion of women being self-sufficient even to this day, thus it bares repeating). Sorry if it offends you.
Moving swiftly on, and speaking more generally...
This article is basically trying to paint Hillary as some combination of a do-nothing and an infidel for not getting on with Southern sexism. It's hard to argue she's "done nothing" when she's served in two branches of government. It's not as though Bill cast all the votes for her. Spouses always help their loved ones, if they're any good, and some help much more than Bill has helped Hillary. Hell, there's an argument to be made that we've already had a female president (in fact if not title) in the form of Eleanor Roosevelt.
If Hillary was in fact an infidel to Southern sexism, quite frankly, why the **** should I care? Good for her.
Also, it is not Hillary who is claiming to be the beleaguered woman, but rather this article, which is claiming that literally everything she has ever done in her life was a feminist statement, and then taking this baseless claim and inserting some words into her mouth about it. It is true that Hillary has given some rather curt answers when asked blatantly sexist questions, but again, good for her, and that is hardly any reason for someone to make up an entire narrative about her life based on nothing but empty conjecture, and the belief that a woman existing is a political statement.
And, even if we assume this narrative is true, then all it does is paint a very bleak picture of what today's middle-to-senior aged women had to deal with to defend their identities, and how extreme the pressure really was. It does nothing to endear me to those tut-tut'ing her for trying to lead her own life. It's basically asking her to apologize for living in a sexist society and trying her best to manage that. Why, exactly?
And lastly, I would imagine that virtually anyone who would be considered part of Hillary's voting block would probably feel the same way. It's not as though she's been courting the conservative sexist vote, now is it. Unsurprisingly, she belongs to the party that includes most feminists. So...
By the by, this is coming from someone who wouldn't vote for Hillary for anything short of someone putting a gun to my head.
There are millions of completely valid critiques of Hillary Clinton. This is not one of them.
