Well, sheeit. The deadline past which I promised to blog about something non-Obama has come and gone. And all I've done to comply is write nothing. This is a compromise. Of sorts.
I don't understand how Hillary Clinton makes feminists proud. Her winning the White House would seem like a victory for women only in the same meager sense that the surge is "working" in Iraq: we've set the bar woefully low. (To paraphrase Barack Obama.)
Apparently the only requirement for feminist victory is that the occupant of the Oval Office have a vag. (To paraphrase Buffy.)
What about the undeniable fact that her major qualification is her husband's presidency? Or that her last name is already so heavily colonized by him that she has to campaign with undignified "Hillary" signs? Didn't they torch the old brassieres back in the day not to be disrespected with first names?
I thought feminism was about not being in the shadows of husbands, not calling attention to gender, not wanting to be treated "like a lady"--choosing instead to compete as an equal.
Why is it feminist to defend a philandering husband? (I guess if he's powerful and you're power-hungry, then it is. Sorry, I forgot.) I don't mean to suggest Bill's cheating is an argument against her candidacy, but Erica Jong seems to think it's the crucial (feminist!) argument for it.
I couldn't feel proud of a President Hillary Clinton. She's a woman who doesn't seem sure about how to be a woman. She poll-tests even that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment