I am not for one candidate or another and I don’t care if Clinton wins but I think the idea that she represents feminism is not true. The goal of many feminists in the 60’s was not to have a female figurehead at the top of a patriarchal system, it was to destroy patriarchy and eliminate sexism in all its forms from society. Sarah Palin who is obviously more patriarchal than Clinton would not benefit women at all. But there is nothing feminist about having a woman in a super powerful position. It only means having a little less testosterone in the power system which will always use gender as well as race and class and everything else to divide people and set them against one another. I don’t care who you vote for but don’t water down feminism for a political agenda.

24 replies on “Clinton Has Nothing to Do with Feminism”

  1. “there is nothing feminist about having a woman in a super powerful position”

    Still, while there are still “super powerful positions” in governments, isn’t it good to have women in some of those positions? No? The whole planet will be an anarcho-syndicalist commune by next Thursday, then? Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?

  2. Oh please. Everyone knows that racism ended the moment we elected a Black president. I can only imagine that the same will happen for sexism once we get a chick in the White House.

  3. the term feminism carries with it too much baggage anyway, and not all of it is good either.
    I just think Clinton is smart and can win.
    have we learned nothing from Perot or Nader dividing the vote and essentially helping the opponent?

  6. Hillary is a doormat. Todd, look back at how she has been treated by other powerful people in the world. There have been and still are female leaders out there who command respect. It ain’t a “woman thing” with Hillary, it’s respect, and ole Bill tapped her well dry.

  7. “Tapped her well dry”? I get it, lazaar, hyuk! hyuk! … like with his “drill bit”? Glad you’re here to teach us about women and respect.

  8. ^ In all fairness Todd, it looks like you’re putting words in lazaar’s mouth. I didn’t interpret his comment in that way, but maybe I’m being naive (again).

  10. I am so progressive I would never vote for a Presidential candidate that would have to stoop so low as to throw out their gender as a freaking qualification to be the POTUS! I don’t want a leader that needs AA points added on to their test scores. Eat my dust.

  13. Judge for yourself, Trayvon. Here was the original end of lazaar’s comment (brought to you through the wonders of Blogtown emailed notifications):

    It ain’t a “woman thing” with hillary, it’s respect, and ole Bill tapped her well dry.(he heee hee!)

  14. Didn’t see your mea culpa before that last comment, lazaar. This delayed commenting that the Merc has instituted makes communication a challenge.

  15. Is Hillary a progressive or moderate? Is trump a god fearing conservative or socially liberal playboy? Is Rubio for or against amnesty? Is Cruz creepy or pious? Is Bernie a socialist or gun nut? The answer to all these questions …. yes.

  16. That last comment was made before I saw your mea culpa, lazaar. This delayed commenting that the Merc has instituted makes communication a challenge.

  20. Todd, there’s no way I’d see the original comment unless lazaar edited while I had this window up. I’ll take your word for it though because I’ve definitely seen it happen before.

  24. ftr, the “well” comment is referring to what Hill n’ Bill did after his presidency in regards to Hill’s respect as SOS and moving forward from there. Talk about a White Privilege Candidate.

Comments are closed.