I’m calling bullshit on Hillary.
Not on Hillary herself. On the media’s portrayal of her.
“The private Hillary is as warm and charming a woman as anyone could conjure up. The public Hillary sometimes seems brittle, with the judgment of a raging rhinoceros,” writes fellow syndicated columnist Ann McFeatters.
I don’t mean to pick on McFeatters. Everyone (in the media) says the same thing: Hillary Clinton is so awesome one-on-one or maybe one-on-six, in private. For example, Mark Leibovich says she’s “quite human and funny” in private.
She’s been a high-profile national politician for more than 20 years. Why hasn’t she figured out how to charm the American public on TV?
These repeated accounts of Hillarity are less than reliable, issued as they are by the kind of people in a position to have met Hillary Clinton, which pretty much guarantees that they’re boring and bland and not very smart — the kind of people who think Obama means well and that Jon Stewart is a laff riot.
But let’s say it’s true. Who will we be voting for or against next year — Public Goofus Hillary or Private Gallant Hillary?
If you evaluate presidential candidates based on how much fun they’d be to share a drink or six with, Hillary presents a trust dilemma. Who wants to throw back cold ones with greedy tone-deaf Public Hillary, worth $20 million if she’s worth a dime, as she whines that she’s not “truly well off“?
But what if it’s true that Private Hillary rolls salt-of-the-earth style, wickedly funny and cool? Should you take a leap of faith, taking the word of the same press corps that gave us the Iraq War, and support the real — albeit secret and seen by few — Hillary?
Perhaps you’re one of those voters who views the presidency as a role to fill, and presidential elections as a casting call. For you, the POTUS is America’s representative on the world stage. He or she has to look — and feel — presidential. Your ideal prez would exude FDR’s charisma, wear Reagan’s suits, have Obama’s calm and JFK’s (or Mitt Romney’s) hair.
For you image voters too, Private vs. Public Hillaries are a problem.
Public Hillary is a nonstarter. She embodies the George W. Bush school of bull-in-a-China-shop diplomacy: the last thing we need is another war, one caused by her deployment of the same nasty exasperated expression she wore at the press conference where she tried to talk away her destruction of four years of electronic archives of the foreign policy history of the United States.
On the other hand, Loveable Private Hillary could bond with Vladmir Putin and other troublesome world leaders, banging out peace treaties and favorable trade agreements at karaoke bars from Pyongyang to Moscow. But what if Private Hillary is as much of a chimera as Saddam’s WMDs? Public Hillary Who Is Also Private Hillary could piss off so many old enemies, and make so many new ones, that we’d be fending off ICBMs in no time.
Or maybe you’re like me, an issues voter. As long as he or she supports the right policies and fight against the bad ones, you don’t care if a politician drinks, or womanizes, or drinks and drives a woman to the bottom of a pond. Show me the bills, dammit!
If you’re in it for substance over style, the Tale of Two Hillaries is even more difficult to tease out.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls Hillary a “feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola.” I’ll focus on the “feminist icon” part: what, aside from being a woman, has Hillary Clinton done for women? She has never proposed a significant piece of women’s rights legislation. Her 2008 presidential bid marketed her, not as a woman, but as a Margaret Thatcher-style “Iron Lady,” a man in woman’s clothing. Only now, echoing Obama’s double-win on the strength of historical symbolism, is she planning to emphasize the plight of girls and women in a patriarchal society.
On policy, Public and Private Hillary blend together. Not because she’s integrated. Because she’s a mess of contradictions: a liberal who supports wars of choice, obsessed with her own privacy as she runs interference for the NSA.
Even if Gallant is the real Hillary, and all that Goofus stuff is either her cynical attempt to work the system in a man’s world or reflects a personality unable to connect with people in large groups, I can’t vote for her.
She supports war and drones and the NSA. Who cares if she’s a barrel of laughs behind closed doors? So was Stalin.
Anyway, my invitation to hang out with her appears to have gotten lost in the mail.
(Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for The Los Angeles Times, is the author of the new critically-acclaimed book “After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan.” Subscribe to Ted Rall at Beacon.)
COPYRIGHT 2015 TED RALL, DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
42 Comments.
Agreed and I read Tintin in Highlights, too.
> Hillary Clinton is so awesome one-on-one or maybe one-on-six, in private.
I’m just gonna take your word one that. I certainly wouldn’t invite her to one of my orgies, but you’re both consenting adults…
I met Hillary during her 2008 run at a Machinist Union event. She had spoken to the room of about 1000 and then came off the stage to shake hands. I am a Canadian and she had made some remarks about our restricted agricultural market.
As she passed me I said, ” Hillary, I am a Canadian. When you become president, please don’t beat up on us too bad.” She turned, focused on me, and said she loved Canadians. We had a short conversation about the Canadian medical system and she moved on.
But when she turned, it was like there was no one else in the room but herself and I. I have never experienced that level of political skill. Her personal skills are world class.
Too bad she is an unrepentant war monger in the service of the empire.
Politically not my cup of tea but I will always remember our interaction.
Hillary Clinton is a prick whether she’s public or private! As a former neighbor, I’ve met her – and she has the personality of a Tyrannosaurus Rex!
Not a feminist? But she meets the top two requirements to be a LEADING feminist. She’s power-mad and hates men. “The primary victims of war are women.” Sorry men, you’re not real people after all.
And how exactly do we still have a patriarchal society? In what way? We’re decades deep into a post-feminist utopia of ubiquitous birth control, abortion, frivolous divorce, and casual sex. Being gay is now cool. And from all the breast cancer and domestic violence awareness campaigns, you wouldn’t even know men were ever cancer or DV victims. The media is constantly braying about feminist hysteria flavors of the month: “manspreading,” “street harassment,” etc. Even Republicans are mostly terrified to oppose the onslaught. Women get all sorts of special legislation: Lilly Ledbetter Act, VAMA, etc. Men are near-universally blamed for relationship problems.
What’s still “patriarchal?” That mostly men still do the dangerous jobs? That they still have to pay for kids they don’t want even when women can choose their pregnancies freely? That they still have to pay alimony when women can get work just fine?
Q: What’s still “patriarchal?”
A: Your post.
↑
LOL
When 40% of children are born entirely out of wedlock, and a large chunk of those born in marriage have their families broken by their feminist mothers, and fathers live in poverty paying onerous child support, you’re goddamned right I’m patriarchal. In feminism is the fall of the West.
If you were serious about opposing the elite, you would see what an incredibly useful tool feminism was for doubling the labor pool (plummeting wages) and pitting men and women against one another (classic divide and conquer) and of course petty distraction issues. Why else would feminism get so much media play?
“a large chunk of those born in marriage have their families broken by their feminist mothers”
Where do you get that from? Is there a source you can cite, or are you making up your own factoids.
That capitalism finds a way to exploit feminism is hardly surprising, but you are placing the blame on the wrong side of that equation.
@ Jack Heart –
“…fathers live in poverty paying onerous [sic] child support….”
Fathers aren’t alone in the requirement to pay child support. I worked for OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) in Arkansas, and there were some mothers who were legally obligated to pay child support to to the fathers.
It sounds to me as if you have a personal problem that skews your perspective.
Jack asks, ” Why else would feminism get so much media play?,”
Same reason that equal rights for gays and blacks get so much media play. i.e. There are still a bunch of assholes out there who think they’re superior based on their color, orientation, plumbing, superstition, or some other utterly irrelevant criterion.
The good news is that you have the power to change things, one sphincter at a time …
Wow, derlehrer, you mean there’s a small amount of mothers who pay child support? That completely makes up for that fact that the vast majority who do are fathers! (sarcasm) Men are now legal second class citizens since the family courts award children to mothers as a matter of course. If this has not occurred to you, count yourself lucky your wife did not decide to forsake her vows! And no, I have not been married and have no children. Why is it that every time anyone speaks up for men that he must be “bitter” or some other such charge? No one thinks that you have to be gay to speak up for gays. Also, nothing incorrect about “onerous.”
Wow, Russell, I assume you are objecting to my calling mothers feminists (since there is no question that the vast majority of divorces are wife-initiated.) Well, nearly all women today (indeed nearly all men as well) hold feminist ideas even if they themselves would object to the label. The number one legacy of second wave feminism is the destruction of the family unit. It went like this: second wave feminism, then *BOOM* exploding divorce rates. If you can’t put the pieces together, then truly there is no helping you. Then again if you still disagree, there’s this thing called Google these days. Do your own research.
Speaking of which, CH, I’m referring to feminism being AstroTurf. Ms. Magazine, for example, was funded by the CIA. That’s public record. Google.
> It went like this: second wave feminism, then *BOOM* exploding divorce rates. If you can’t put the pieces together, then truly there is no helping you.
I couldn’t agree more. Now that women are no longer dependent upon men they no longer have to put up with chauvinistic bullshit. If you can’t put the pieces together, you’re not going to have a son to carry on your beliefs.
Two reasons that men are reluctant to divorce is that they are much more likely to lose custody of their children, and because it will probably cost them financially. Both of those are direct results of the patriarchy. Once we’ve achieved better equality of the sexes, those differences will disappear.
@ CrazyH –
I fear that we are up against the proverbial “brick wall”!
The only thing I might add at this point is:
Because “B” follows “A” does NOT mean that “A” was the cause of “B.”
LOL
@DerLehrer
I don’t actually expect to change most posters’ opinions. Poking holes in their arguments is personally gratifying, yes, but for every poster there are thousands of lurkers.
Maybe I’ll convince some of them. Even better, authoritarians hate to be mocked or shown to be wrong. The best we can hope for is that they learn not to mouth off in public.
Example: gay rights in this country are on the rise. Did we ever chance any homophobes’ minds? Oh, hell no, what we did was convince them they’d be mocked if they got mouthy. Their children grew up in a world which gave lip service to gay rights, and their grandchildren grew up in a world where such things were simply accepted without comment.
A concrete example: Mr. Ass above will insist he’s all in favor of gay rights where in point of fact he’s a raging homophobe. But he’s out here making pro-rights statements simply because he doesn’t want the negative feedback he’d get if he did post his true feelings on the matter.
Marriage ain’t a right; it’s a privilege. Gays should be left alone to be gay, but marriage ain’t for them.
And truly fascinating! You’re saying that men erected the patriarchy in order to screw themselves over? Wow! Except the fact that divorce is so easy and that family courts favor women are NEW developments. Did you really just grope for that old, nebulous “blame the patriarchy” argument? It is true that MEN are the ones today who have the most legal incentive to keep their families happy and together. Women have every reason in the world not to. Of course you would be one to believe that men who are run through the divorce meat grinder deserved it though it’s plain they probably tried very hard to avoid it. Yeah, I’m sure they act like male chauvinists just so they can encourage their wives to divorce them. I also like the way you absolve such women of guilt when no one made them marry such terrible chauvinists in the first place!
Although, I know you’ve seen plenty of chauvinists who are well-liked by women. It’s simply laughable to suggest women are categorically incensed by such an attitude. They find it generally attractive. And if they don’t like a particular one, it’s for another reason (such as being directly insulting). Feminist types are always whining how young guys don’t have respect for women anymore; well. the women should stop rewarding their disrespect with so much sex!
I tell you though, the fact that not one of the three of you can really answer anything I’ve said only goes to reinforce the thing I’m more sure of anything: that feminism is bad for men, children, and perhaps especially women.
Something else to consider: how few women are interested in politics at all. I mean where are all the women here for example? It’s been you men who have had to attempt to defend feminism. The truth is that most women do not care much about rights per se. They just want whatever they believe benefits them in the moment. They are security-minded and as such are much more likely to sacrifice rights and freedoms for the appearance or feeling of increased security. They are authoritarian. And I am amused you called me such when I have not appealed to authority once and have backed by arguments logically and indeed identify as the polar opposite, a libertarian. Speaking of which, there are so few libertarian women.
Maybe you’ll be able to figure out one day that just because I think women shouldn’t be able to vote doesn’t mean I hate them. Children shouldn’t vote either, and I love kids. 😉
It really is just laughable that you act as though only you know who deserves what rights and if someone disagrees with your views, he doesn’t believe in rights at all. Well, do you want children to vote? Do you support both the right to work and the right to unionize? Indeed such a viewpoint falls apart when one considers for a moment just how much disagreement exists about what rights even ARE.
So feminism is eventually going to help men by destroying the last of the “patriarchy?” That was the plan all along? Let me know when they finally start caring about men’s issues and feminism starts working for men.
“It really is just laughable that you act as though only you know who deserves what rights and if someone disagrees with your views, he doesn’t believe in rights at all.”
*
Mr. Pot, I’d like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
…Except I haven’t implied you guys don’t care about rights. Perhaps some rights in particular, but not rights in general. CH is saying that because I disagree with a few “rights,” I don’t care about anyone’s rights at all.
* CH is saying that because I disagree with a few “rights,” I don’t care about anyone’s rights at all.*
—
Well, maybe I somehow missed that accusation and perhaps I failed to understand your post of March 21st: “Marriage ain’t a right; it’s a privilege. Gays should be left alone to be gay, but marriage ain’t for them.”
I’ve heard the “right vs privilege” argument for years and I’ve never really understood it, so I did a little Google search. I found a rather interesting site here:
http://wilksopinion.com/2011/03/16/a-right-vs-a-privilege-whats-the-difference/
Here are a couple of exerpts therefrom:
1) “If what you see as a right requires something of someone else, and what is required of them infringes upon their rights, it is not a right, it is a privilege.”
2) “If it is a right, it does not require anything of anybody… If on the other hand, it does require someone else to sacrifice or give of themself in any way, it is most likely a privilege.”
To be fair, I would ask you to offer your perspective of how the two are differentiated.
Happy Monday, Jack –
> Marriage ain’t a right; it’s a privilege.
It’s neither. If it doesn’t hurt you, it’s none of your business.
> Gays should be left alone to be gay, but marriage ain’t for them.
Funny, the other day you said that gay marriage was just fine by you. Like I said, “Homophobe”
> You’re saying that men erected the patriarchy in order to screw themselves over?
No. I didn’t say that. Might I suggest that you take a remedial reading course? At worst, I implied that some of the tactics backfired.
> Did you really just grope for that old, nebulous “blame the patriarchy” argument?
No. The fact that I provided concrete examples should be your first clue.
> Of course you would be one to believe that men who are run through the divorce meat grinder deserved it
Remedial. Reading. Course. I’ve never said anything of the sort.
> I also like the way you absolve such women of guilt when no one made them marry such terrible chauvinists in the first place!
Remedial. Reading. Course. I’ve never said anything of the sort.
> It’s simply laughable to suggest women are categorically incensed by such an attitude.
Remedial. Reading. Course.
> Feminist types are always whining how young guys don’t have respect for women anymore; well. the women should stop rewarding their disrespect with so much sex!
So, when was the last time you got laid? If your reasoning is correct, then you should be getting more pussy than the rest of us put together. And BTW, at this point you’re arguing against yourself.
> I tell you though, the fact that not one of the three of you can really answer anything I’ve said only goes to reinforce the thing I’m more sure of anything: that feminism is bad for men, children, and perhaps especially women.
Name something I’ve missed, and I’ll be happy to show you where you’re wrong. You conclusion is a complete and utter non sequitur. Feminism either is or is not bad; whether someone shoots down your BS is completely unrelated.
> mean where are all the women here for example?
I give you the example of sweet, little, meip who ran off because she got tired of listening to your misogynistic bullshit. Maybe you remember? She said goodbye and you thought it was all about you? There are thousands sites about women’s rights, they have spirited discussions, and they’re just a Google away.
> The truth is that most women do not care much about rights per se.
uh-huh. So where did the women’s right movements come from? How the hell did they get the right to vote? Can you cite one, single, documented fact to bolster this ludicrous assertion?
> They just want whatever they believe benefits them in the moment.
Oh! So they’re exactly like men in this respect. That’s one we can agree on.
> And I am amused you called me [an authoritarian] when I have not appealed to authority once
This statement makes exactly zero sense. You really should look up the definitions of any words over two syllables when you use them in a post.
> just because I think women shouldn’t be able to vote doesn’t mean I hate them.
Oh, no, it’s the other hundred gigabytes of vitriol you spew in their general direction that shows how much you hate women. Have you considered dating men? They’re such paragons of virtue, they may be more to your liking. Homophobia is quite often a sign of repression. Let your inner queer out – it might calm you down.
> he doesn’t believe in rights at all.
Remedial. Reading. Course. Ain’t nobody here said nuttin’ of the sort.
Hillary is an icon all right–paint on wood representing a mythical being.
You, like me, may be lefter than he–but Jon Stewart is much, much funnier than you are.
fosforos ~
Well technically, I’m sure you meant to say that John Stewart’s joke-writing staff is much, much funnier than Ted.
DanD
Nice, Dan.
Or you could be a realistic voter and vote for Hillary because she’s going to do less damage to the country than her Republican opponent.
That’s the same line of reasoning that got us OBummer – in the words of Dr. Phil, “How’s that been working out for you?”
The system is broken beyond repair. The only hope is to destroy it and build a new one.
Voting for Republicans will hasten that destruction, so rather than holding your nose & voting for Hillary, hold your nose and vote for the rich white misogynist.
So close! I was right there with you until you blanket accused all Republicans of “hating women.”
> I was right there with you until you blanket accused all Republicans of “hating women.”
Wait … what? I’ve never accused all Republicans of hating women, certainly not in the post to which you are referring. I occasionally accuse individuals of such :: significant glance upwards :: but never an entire political party.
That said, GOP’s anti-american manifesto is opposed to women’s rights.
“The system is broken beyond repair. The only hope is to destroy it and build a new one.:”
This statement is A) complete bullshit (just because the “progressives” don’t have a clue about how to accomplish the repair nor the necessary patience/frustration tolerance necessary to enact it does not mean the system is broken beyond repair and B) exactly what Republicans want you to think.
They’ve been trying to get people to believe the system needs to be torn down for forty years because it gives them power before the crash they’re engineering. And once they get enough people to believe that nonsense and the crash happens, they can complete their end game- the transformation of America into a fascist theocracy.
If you are foolish enough not believe that nonsense and act accordingly, I promise you that when the system falls, you will find that what will arise in its place will be much, much worse.
I
Oh, and to answer your question of “How’s that working out for you?” Wouldn’t know, my strategy’s never been tried.
But given the complete and utter failure of the “progressive” policy of punishing the Democrats for not delivering the impossible immediately has been for the past forty years, you’d think anyone with a clue would be chomping at the bit for a better way.
Not broken, seriously, Whimsy?
How is voting for Hillary going to stop global warming, over population, endless war, and gross financial inequality? (remember, H has only paid lip service to the first, ignored the second, and has actively supported the last two)
Let’s just take global warming: if we want to stop it, we’ll all have to stop driving cars immediately, and cut our other energy consumption by two-thirds. Can you imagine what would happen? Mass starvation, wars, etc. It’s simply not going to happen. So what we will do? We’ll cut emissions by five percent while the population increases twenty percent. It’s a losing game. The petroleum will run out long before we have a viable alternative, anyway..
We’re too dependent on this technological house of cards we’ve built. In order to fix it, the entire population of the planet will have to pitch in to a common goal. The rich will have to give up the bulk of their riches, the US will have to give up the bulk of its riches, and do you think they’ll give them up willingly?
BOTH parties want you to think that they can fix major systemic problems with small, non-disruptive fixes. In that way, they are both saying, “You can stay fat, dumb, and happy the rest of your lives if you just vote for my party”
You know, the same song you sing every time you wander in here. We need big changes, and doing the same-ol, same-ol, ain’t gonna make that happen.
> Oh, and to answer your question of “How’s that working out for you?” Wouldn’t know, my strategy’s never been tried.
WTF??? Did you even read my post? THAT “STRATEGY” IS WHAT GO US OBAMA. Hello?
Your “strategy” is “keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.”
“Not broken, seriously, Whimsy?”
Didn’t say the system wasn’t broken. But there’s a hell of a difference between “broken” and “broken beyond repair” and we aren’t at the latter yet. If “progressives” get a clue, we may never be.
“How is voting for Hillary going to stop global warming, over population, endless war, and gross financial inequality?”
Its not. Its going to be the first step in a long and dirty slog. We’d be further along if “progressives” hadn’t trashed Democrats for not delivering the impossible immediately for the past forty years, but given that this is the only way that will work, the sooner we get started the better.
And it’ll sure as hell be better at combating your issues than putting Republicans in power or allowing them to change America into a fascist theocracy.
” We need big changes, and doing the same-ol, same-ol, ain’t gonna make that happen.”
This is Republican horseshit designed to make you give up hope. Shame on you for falling for it. The system is designed to prevent BIG changes and reward a steady stream of my progress(which, ironically, “progressives” have held up for forty years). There is NO way to get big changes through, and there is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest that BIG changes provide enough of a difference versus slow and steady progress to justify sacrificing our Democracy.
“WTF??? Did you even read my post? THAT “STRATEGY” IS WHAT GO US OBAMA”
Nope. The strategy in play for the past forty years is the “progressives”- “The Democrats didn’t give us everything we wanted immediately (even though our demands were incredibly unrealistic) so we’ll make sure to punish them by making sure they lose the next election. That’ll teach them go left!”- and they double down on it every election despite its complete and obvious failure.
That makes them the ones that advocate we – how did you put it “keep doing the same thing while expecting different results”.
The system and the country are both saveable, but given that it depends on “progressives” getting a clue, Im not holding my breath.
@Whimsical wrote: “Nope. The strategy in play for the past forty years is the “progressives”- “The Democrats didn’t give us everything we wanted immediately (even though our demands were incredibly unrealistic) so we’ll make sure to punish them by making sure they lose the next election. That’ll teach them go left!”- and they double down on it every election despite its complete and obvious failure.”
Your reading of history is truncated.
Lefties look further back. Democrats went from real liberalism in 1932, to less liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s, to outright conservatism beginning with Jimmy Carter’s proto-triangulation Southern Baptist Governor model. Why the move right? Democrats chased the right to the right…and they didn’t have to.
blah blah blah blah progressive blah blah blah blah get a clue blah blah blah blah.
You could save yourself some work if you simply cut & pasted the same post over & over.
> my strategy’s never been tried
WTF?? DUDE! Your “strategy” is ‘vote a straight democratic ticket’ I tried that for … oh … at least thirty years while I watched the country continually lurch to the right. About all you add is “quit whining and vote a straight democratic ticket”
So, in fifty words or less, please explain how your “strategy” is going to bring about anything different than voting a straight democratic ticking while whining.
@ CrazyH –
Why do you even bother? I gave up on this troll more than a year ago. As you said, he might as well cut & paste the same post over and over again.
I’ve seen no concrete suggestions for solving the problem he describes as the Progressives wanting everything to occur in an instant. Nothing at all. Just the same old garbage regurgitated time and again:(
eh, when yer right, yer right, derlehrer.
My best excuses are “boredom” and “frustration” (I didn’t say they were good excuses, just the best I got 😉
In order for me to do that you would have to have an understanding of my actual strategy; which is not now nor has it ever been “stop whining and vote a straight democratic ticket”.
As I have already spent hundreds of words detailing the only strategy that will bring about positive change in a time frame other than geological, the only question that remains is whether you won’t understand it or whether you can’t.
You seem like an intelligent (if not exactly reasonable) person, so my money’s on won’t.
No, Whimsy, you have NEVER outlined anything resembling a strategy – which is the reason I give you a hard time.
Phase 1: Quit whining
Phase 3: Profit
What’s phase 2?
@ CrazyH –
GOOD ON YOU!!! 😀
1. With the 12-Hillary Crayola pack, Ted has, almost, covered all of her positions on _________ (pick an issue).
2. Feminism. Let’s get the word cleared up. Feminism, simply put, says that unless the task at hand requires a penis (or a vagina), the presence of aforementioned penis (or vagina) shouldn’t matter. Why shouldn’t it matter? Because it, demonstrably, doesn’t matter.
What we have now in this country is not FEMINISM. The conversation has been hijacked and has been for years and years. Let me mansplain. I think I’m a feminist. I think a woman, with a very small set of exceptions, can do any job a man can do. I think a woman should be paid the same rate as a man. I think any woman who shows up for a job interview should get her chance to try out for the job. But I also think most women cannot be firefighters. That’s not sexism, that’s biology.
The part that isn’t discussed very much is that most men, also, cannot be firefighters. I can’t be a firefighter. I might, under absolute duress with a body filled with adrenalin, be able to drag an unconscious person out of a burning building while carrying 50 pounds of equipment on my back. But go down a flight of stairs with said person on my shoulders? You are out of your mind.
So the conversation is hijacked. “Women are excluded! Women are excluded!” When I try to say, “Almost all men are too.” I am instantly categorized a sexist. Look at college applications at the Ivy Leagues. It’s the same thing. Almost all men and almost all women simply cannot get into an Ivy League (I exclude the Bushes from this). By definition, they can’t have high-enough GPA. By definition, they can’t have high-enough SATs. You can speak Urdu and Xhosa? The other applicant speaks Norwegian, Spanish, Latin and Greek and is teaching a course over the summer in Esperanto.
The difference with the Ivy Leagues? There’s no physical strength test. The admission rates can be carefully balanced by gender. (Some schools actually have more women than men.) So the conversation is hijacked. “If there can be equality in the Ivy Leagues, why can’t we have equality in the firefighting world?” It’s apples and oranges, but that detail is not permitted into the discussion.
3. On Hillary herself. People admire a smart criminal. Hillary ain’t smart. A smart criminal would go past a bowl of M&Ms and grab three or four. A dumb criminal would take them all. Hillary, I suspect, would try to cram the whole assembly, bowl and all, into her purse and casually try to stroll out. When caught, she’d said ALL of this: “How did that get in there? I have no idea. I didn’t realize they weren’t for the taking, I thought they were samples, I didn’t mean to leave the building. I was just kidding around.”
When caught, her story never holds up to scrutiny because there’s so much contradiction. Some movie critic got stopped a few years back for walking out of a music store with some CDs in his hand. He described it as a senior moment, and that’s actually believable, isn’t it? Some national critic who makes a fortune is going to walk out of a store with electronic theft prevention with the CDs out in the open? Yes, it was a senior moment. His story holds together. He doesn’t say it was a senior moment, and he was going out to his car to get the money, and his friend is holding his wallet out on the sidewalk …
Hillary doesn’t have the native sense of criminality. It isn’t bred in her bones. I suspect that she simply isn’t smart enough in that cunning animal way. There are some people who can ALWAYS get away with shit because they simply see how to do it. Hillary isn’t one of those. Bill Clinton is quite good at it. I don’t think anyone ever got the better of Bill on a deal. Dick Cheney? I don’t think most people even come away with a profit after dealing with him.
Hillary would be great as a midlevel executive stealing via her expense account, but she’d get caught one day doing a dumb mistake like claiming she had to buy 6,000 staplers. But national level politics? The real predators will move in, pin her down and eat her alive.
Feminism has indeed been hijacked by fanatics. But since they call themselves feminists, then I must as well. The other part of your definition that has a problem (and it’s a big one) is that the only difference between the sexes are the genitals. And that belief is really the source of so very many problems today. Really anyone that’s lived a day in his (or her) life should know this. Even children. No, I’m not going to make a list: it would stretch miles.