A Glorious Triumph of Feminism

Hillary Clinton seems poised to become the first woman to be the presidential nominee of a major American political party. It’s supposed to be a major symbolic moment, at least in terms of identity politics. But it feels hollow, largely because of something most commentators hesitate to say in public: if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton, she wouldn’t be where she is now. Why can’t a nation of 319 million people find a woman president who didn’t marry her way into the job? Because the system still won’t allow it.

13 thoughts on “A Glorious Triumph of Feminism

  1. In the 4th century B.C. Socrates, was asked if a woman should be excluded from an occupation because of being a woman. He saw no reason a woman could not be employed in a traditionally male occupation if, for example, in training a someone to ride a horse neither a penis nor a vagina was necessary to the skill to be taught.

    Humanity as a whole has not yet become as intelligent and civilized as one human from thousands of years ago.

    In groping through the darkness of a primitive stone age mentality “modern” humans, being unable to fully comprehend nuances apparent to Socrates, occupations that require neither a penis nor a vagina are now assigned by non-relevant traits; as if excluding someone from an occupation by gender (or race) is stupid, then the simple minded solution has become the assignation of someone to an occupation in the absence of any other qualifications but gender, must therefore be smart.

    So issues actually relevant to the lives of the citizenry are excluded from election campaigns, this exclusion being a winning strategy.

      • True, True.

        But should a woman be prohibited from being a riding instructor just because she can get off without dismounting?

    • «In the 4th century B.C. Socrates, was asked if a woman should be excluded from an occupation because of being a woman.» I suspect, Glenn, that you’re here referring to the discussion in Book V pf Platon’s Πολιτεία (The State, customarily translated into English as The Republic, which gives a rather misleading impression), in which Sokrates proposes that, like men,even women can be Guardians (he also proposes that for the Guardians, marriage should be abolished – which, perhaps, Ms Clinton would approve, and that the Guardians should have their property in common and live in a sort of monastic poverty, a conception which, on the evidence she might find considerably more difficult to embrace).

      Given that one of the work’s main proposals is that the public be fed a γενναῖον ψεῦδος (Noble Lie) concerning the origins of the three classes in order to justify the manner in which the regime is run, I suspect that, on the whole, it is right up Ms Clinton’s alley….


      • I believe that’s the part I remembered and referred to.

        The binding of my complete works of Plato is visible at the bottom of a book stack behind a living room chair, so I will trust your reference.

      • Well, Glenn, I have no difficulty whatever regarding Ms Clinton as a Platonist who firmly believes – but would of course deny – that politics should be left to the elite. Although, as noted above, I suspect she would find the concept of the polls living in monastic poverty less appealing….

        Not so incidentally, Matt Taibbi has a good article over at Rolling Stone on the lessons that the Democratic Party in the US, will fail to learn from Mr Sanders’ campaign and the response it evoked….


      • I always appreciate Matt Taibbi’s perspective, especially when it is so close to my own.

  2. Sad commentary – and it’s sad that the first black pres was such a disappointment as well.

    … BUT …

    We did break that barrier, so there is an upside to the story. Maybe the next Madam President will get there on her own. (and maybe airliners will have to start installing pig-catchers, but I’m not holding my breath.)

  3. One question: If Hillary Rodham Clinton were a man, would you vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
    Follow-up question: What’s the definition of feminism?

    • Trump is dealing with charges that he made big money misrepresenting his namesake educational institutions. Fraud, prosecutable.

      Candidate Obama misrepresented his future presidency, abandoning his promise to end NAFTA, and no more stupid wars, among other broken promises, a list of which need not be made for the marginally conscious. Fraud, but not prosecutable and record high approval ratings, so I’ve heard.

      So if you want to get away with murder, run for office.

      Obama was W. Bush III and IV, and Hillary is well on her way to being W. Bush V.

      I wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she were a man or a woman; the penis/vagina thing is not relevant.

      I don’t take elections too seriously. Once I couldn’t decide whether to vote for a black man or a white woman so I voted for a black woman.

      Betrayal of trust is no big obstacle before electoral success in the United States of Amnesia. It’s part of the common, way too forgiving American slave mentality.

      • Trump’s University? Let us ask all the students with PhDs or MAs or BAs who are working part-time at the Publix and living paycheck to paycheck about whether that “degree” from their “real” university has helped them any.

      • Yes, Trump’s fraud should be prosecuted.

        From what I have seen of him, fraudulent behavior seems to be consistent with his character.

        That doesn’t excuse the fraud perpetrated by Obama in his many reneged upon campaign promises that are not prosecutable (being just “politics”) and seem to be at this time to have been relegated to the memory hole of the United States of Amnesia.

  4. She isn’t the Democratic nominee because she was the former first lady, she’s the Democratic nominee because she had over three million more votes than Bernie Sanders.

    She also didn’t marry into the presidency. She married the man who would later become president, and there’s no reason to believe he would have become president without her. Beyond that she’s since held elected office, appointed office, and while she was first lady she was more politically active than any first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.

    People and politicians get attention for arbitrary reasons. The only reason Bernie Sanders gained any traction was because the Republicans have been attacking Hillary for decades and he was the only credible alternative. If Joe Biden ran then Bernie would’ve been an after-thought.

    If being first lady was an easy path to the presidency, how come nobody has ever done it before?

Leave a Reply