Sunday, May 28, 2006

Hillary Clinton Is In It For Herself



Senate Reelection Campaign Video Premieres Wednesday

Do Not Be Confused: Feminist and Opportunist Are Not Synonymous

It's past time feminists realized there is nothing to gain in putting Hillary Rodham Clinton into any elected office. The woman has confused "feminist" as meaning "opportunist" -- that is, a woman in it for herself and her own promotion and no other reason. New York feminists would be ill-advised to vote her back into her Senate office unless they can produce one iota of evidence of anything she has championed through Congress -- or, failing that, given that Democrats are not the party in power -- merely introduced that would benefit women. I don't mean bills that would benefit Hillary, a woman herself, who is not viewing her prestigious seat in the Senate as an ends in itself for the introduction of far-reaching radical plans for change but as a launching point for her further political aspirations. I mean bills she has introduced that would benefit the status of U.S. women, generally. Even if they have no chance of passing. Show me any bill she has introduced that in any way could be considered to benefit any woman other than herself in any way.

But I digress. (Though not really.) Since when did Opportunist become synonymous with Feminist? Apparently when the Baby Boomers came of age and all that was important to them -- according to no less than liberal feminist icon Betty Friedan -- was getting women into positions of power. With all hell to their actual actions and whether they ever worked on behalf of any woman other than themselves. And Hillary Rodham Clinton demonstrably has acted against women in general and feminists in particular. To vote for her is to be a dupe as a feminist. You're not voting for a feminist. You're voting for an opportunist. And only if you think feminism and opportunism are synonymous would you vote for this woman thinking for one second she will work and vote on your behalf and not her own concerns and calculations regarding her furthering of herself.

I could continue but my views on Ms. Clinton during her husband's presidency and beyond are well known on this blog. Just enjoy the video this week as her husband comes out in (surprise) support of the woman who stood by his side despite sexual harassment charges from a poor, undereducated subordinate in the government who lost job promotions and (strikingly unusual in government) actually was demoted and shipped off to dead-end jobs when she refused to suck him off after he dropped trou on the job -- what was I saying? Oh yeah. Hillary the feminist stuck by this man even after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that this woman, poor and undereducated -- "White Trash" as James Carville, Hillary Clinton's go-to-destroy-guy in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy debacle, put it -- woman's sexual harassment case could go forward. A first for feminists and the sexual harassment law that Catharine A. MacKinnon wrote? Oh hell no. Hillary Clinton was all for the demonization of Paula Jones as White "trailer park" Trash and the politicization of this case, even though it is standard procedure for sexual harassment lawyers to show a pattern of conduct, ie, this is why Monica Lewinsky, the intern who had a consensual blow-job relationship with the president, was relevant, because even though it was consensual there was a quid-pro-quo for which Lewinsky -- and an intern is demonstrably subordinant to the President of the United States -- received for her services promotions and a promised job at Revlon.

Oh but please do not even get me started.

Too late! Oh well. If the only reason you have voted for this woman is because of her aura of feminist solidarity then let me put it to you straight from GenX: Vote this woman out of office already. Stop deluding yourselves. Women are the last group Hillary Rodham Clinton is interested in advancing. She has already proven it. All she is interested in is her own promotion.

Maybe this is feminism under an ancient definition, but it doesn't fit in with today's reality. Only a liberal power couple -- as opposed to any right-wing Republican -- could be the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. liberal feminist movement. If you can't recognize an opportunist in your midst masquerading as a feminist then you deserve to be buried alive by this "friend."

22 Comments:

Blogger panda cookie said...

I've never been a fan of Hilary's. It's amazing how many people believe she's for the advancement of women.

11:12 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Yes I agree, panda cookie. But I have to admit I'm thinking my post can just be lumped in with apparently all the mainstream-bashing-Hillary articles and commentary that simultaneously appeared this week. I guess being a former newsie is still in the veins and it scares me how even this far removed I've still got the taint in my blood, apparently. Or else there's something in the water making not just me -- I've been against Hillary a long time, arguing she's so clearly *not* feminist and that she and her husband singlehandedly damaged the liberal U.S. feminist movement far beyond what Republicans could ever hope to do. .... something in the water making not just me but apparently, suddenly, a lot of current mainstream journalists come out in print against the Ms.

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"she and her husband singlehandedly damaged the liberal U.S. feminist movement far beyond what Republicans could ever hope to do"

Huh?

2:40 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

The sexual harassment laws, a mockery now. Bill Clinton, a lawyer, blew off a unanimous Supreme Court that said the sexual harassment case could go forward --this should have been a serious victory for feminists (Catharine A. MacKinnon wrote the sexual harassment law) -- but instead lied under oath when Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawyers (not Ken Starr) questioned him about Monica Lewinsky *in an attempt to show a pattern of behavior*. This is classic, standard proceedings by sexual harassment lawyers in a sexual harassment case and Clinton the lawyer knew it as did his wife, Hillary Clinton -- also a lawyer and ostensibly a feminist. (Paula Jones, a poor undereducated woman, is *exactly* the kind of woman the sexual harassment laws were written to protect). Bill Clinton as governor during a conference had Paula Jones brought back to his room, dropped trou during work hours, asked her to suck him off, and she, a lowly subordinant state government worker, refused -- and then -- and if you know how government employment works you will recognize this as HIGHLY unusual -- she was DEMOTED and shipped off to dead-end jobs. Monica Lewinsky, an intern in the White House, chose to suck off the president during work hours in the Oval Office and was rewarded with promotions within the federal government and then was promised a lucrative job at Revlon.

Classic quid pro quo. There is a reason the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this case had enough merit to at least go forward and Jones have her day in court -- and the justices UNANIMOUSLY ruled this way.

And there is a reason Bill Clinton lied under oath when the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawyers (not Ken Starr) went into the direction of attempting to show a pattern of behavior via the Monica Lewinisky affair.

And both Bill and Hillary Clinton, the lawyers and the feminists and profeminists, knew this was not "just a civil suit," but a sexual harassment suit the Supreme Court unanimously said could go forward, and they made sure not to respect that law.

Yes. This couple did far more to harm feminism than any Republican could ever hope to do -- no Republican ever could have gotten away with such flamboyant disregard of what should have been a major feminist milestone, much less received the support of liberal feminist leaders in trampling all over this law.

All for partisan Democratic reasons. What a high price saving Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Wow what a high price.

Was it worth it?

2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This couple did far more to harm feminism than any Republican could ever hope to do -- no Republican ever could have gotten away with such flamboyant disregard of what should have been a major feminist milestone, much less received the support of liberal feminist leaders in trampling all over this law."

I'm curious; would you still feel this way if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the current Supreme Court?

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what I do not get:

Most male politicians are in it for their own benefit, and yet we still tolerate and vote for them. But GOD FORBID A WOMAN BE IN IT FOR HERSELF! Oh, the horrors of a selfish woman! After all, being the fairer sex, women should be delicate, selfless, and self-sacrificing. Woe to a woman who act just like the male majority in her chosen field.

I don't really care if Senator Clinton is a feminist or not, because I'm under no illusion that we'll ever get a feminist into the top office. I believe that path is going to be blazed by a career politican who doesn't give a shit for anything but her own politics, because that's who always gets the presidency. But I think that the value of having a female president stands on its own - that path has to be blazed by someone, and Clinton seems like the best shot to come along so far.

Also, I'm tired of hearing how Clinton is at fault for every failure of feminism today. That's right - don't blame conservative men, blame a woman! Perfectly in keeping with Layla's penchant for referring to women as "hose beasts" and caring more about the shape of Jennifer Aniston's ass than an subject of actual substantative content. Feminist, my ass.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

First anonymous:

Yes. Because one precious Legacy of the Clintons has been the final unraveling of the liberal U.S. feminist movement -- it's ability to be taken seriously within the realm it does its work (the mainstream political/legislative/etc), it's effectiveness, it's very survival. It can't survive now: In the early 1990s GenX women came into their early 20s and GenX generally was highly political anyway, but before the Clintons there was at that time Faludi, Wolf, Anita Hill, the emergence of the Riot Grrrls, and Rebecca Walker heading a new small group of activists called The Third Wave (long before the name came to mean all GenX and younger women in the movement). But the disaster of the U.S. liberal feminist movement's leaders in the mid- and late-1990s of putting Bill and Hillary Clinton before feminist concerns -- they put this couple's opportunist and ass-saving ends before all the poor, undereducated women for whom the seuxal harassment laws were written; they put this couple's opportunistic ass-saving ends before the viability and effectiveness and no less than the continuation of the movement itself! -- we watched in shock as these leaders rightly were accused of being hypocritical and of performing mental gymnastics to get into the absurd and humiliating positions they found themselves in. The liberal U.S. feminist movement is bigger than one woman and her husband -- or by all logic it should have been. Why do you care about Roe if you don't care about the status of the sexual harassment law or the ability of the liberal feminist movement to seek change in its political arena or even survive for that matter? I mean isn't Hillary and isn't Bill bigger than the movement's concerns for itself? And what have either of them done about ensuring that women's choice remains intact? (Introduced a federal bill or constitutional amendment? Anyone?)

9:28 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Second anyonyous:

I'm not the only GenX feminist who fled the movement when liberal U.S. feminist leaders like Gloria Steinem got down on her knees and sucked off the Clintons in public on behalf of all of us, our reputations, all logic. The substantive part of my argument is about the status of the sexual harassment law in the United States as a result of the actions of the Clintons. Then there is the aspect of how liberal feminist leaders so fiercely, hypocritically defended the Clintons for no other reason than that Bill was a Democratic man who supposedly was pro-feminist and Hillary was a Feminist. This couple has used and abused the feminist movement, in the name of feminism, for their own opportunistic ends. That is what makes Hillary (and Bill) different from your anonymous male politicians who are opportunists (but do not use and abuse the feminist movement in the name of feminism for their own opportunistic ass-saving ends).

If you care about having effective liberal and radical U.S. feminist movements, then it cannot possibly strike you as antifeminist to point out what has gone terribly wrong within the movement(s) themselves and must change if we are to ever rebuild the movements and their ability to make change. Sorry that burns your ass.

9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gloria Steinem got down on her knees and sucked off the Clintons"

Honey, this is where you lose me. I can't really believe that someone who uses this kind of language about women really has feminism at heart. Sure, you talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, all ya got are hose beasts, petty remarks about blond actresses, and derogatory comments about other feminists. Whatever.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, seriously, Layla. How can you expect anyone to believe your professed feminism when you use the language of misogyny and pornography to make a point? What lover of women would use that kind of language about Gloria Steinem? Or about *anyone*, come to that?

6:09 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Weirdly I have yet to see anyone come forward with a substantive compilation of all the bills Hillary Rodham Clinton has introduced on behalf of women rather than as a calculated move for own opportunistic ends. Weirdly the best anyone can say is that they don't like me saying leading feminists publicly sucked the Clintons off -- talk about shallow nonarguments versus substantive feminist issues raised here regarding the Clintons. What would you prefer? Oh let me guess. You would prefer Clinton's own language: "Kiss It." Okay. Leading feminists got down on their knees and "Kissed It" for the Clintons.

The truth ain't pretty, folks. Face it. That's what you're objecting to; you'd prefer Clintonian euphamisms to not have to look directly at any of what went down and question just how much of it was to anyone's benefit other than the Mr. and Mrs. It's ironic you find my language more offensive than the actual actions of this couple outlined in detail in the post and in my responses here.

7:03 AM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

This is poetic, actually. *The whole point of my post is that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS* and that it's way past time liberal feminists recognized that despite all Hillary and Bill Clinton's talk and politically correct use of words they are an opportunistic couple who has used and abused feminism in the name of feminism. There is something profoundly sick in this inability to differentiate between words and actions.

7:22 AM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

It is a *substantive* issue to be able to differentiate between words and actions, by the way, for the first anonymous who talked as though there was nothing substantive at all in any of what I say.

7:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will you stop it with the goddamn fellatio language already? AND THOSE CAPITALS REALLY GET ON FOLKS' NERVES.

9:51 PM  
Blogger Sarahlynn said...

Anonymous: "Most male politicians are in it for their own benefit, and yet we still tolerate and vote for them. But GOD FORBID A WOMAN BE IN IT FOR HERSELF!"

Bingo. And this is where, I believe, Laylalola, your criticism of Senator Clinton resonates with that of the mainstream media and conservatives nationwide.

Clinton is doing as politicians everywhere have always done. No better, no worse than most.

I'm no expert on Clinton's political record - far from it. But I have been glad to hear her voice in discussions regarding Alzheimer's and Darfur.

A quick search (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery) reveals that Clinton has recently sposored:
1) S.RES.485: A resolution to express the sense of the Senate concerning the value of family planning for American women.
2) S.841 : A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
3) S.844 : A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
4) S.1134 : A bill to express the sense of Congress on women in combat.
Etc.

10:10 AM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Again, the difference between both Clintons and generic "male politicians" who are opportunists is that the Clintons *use and abuse feminism and the feminist movement IN THE NAME OF FEMINISM* for their own opportunistic ends.

(Of your four bills, two are "Sense of the Senate" resolutions, which mean nothing -- they don't become law even if they are passed. The other two of course have not passed and likely never even have had a hearing. But okay. That's the best she's got, so far, according to all her defenders.)

7:01 PM  
Blogger Sarahlynn said...

Well I didn't do an exhaustive search of her senate record. But I do think it's disingenuous to say that she's done *nothing* when clearly that's not true.

Two other points.

1) I think that constantly referring to "The Clintons" and holding Senator Clinton responsible for everything her husband did in office (as so many, including you, are doing) is not just because he was POTUS. I think she's grouped with her spouse more than most candidates because she's a woman.

2) Suggesting that Senator Clinton should have divorced her husband in order to maintain her feminist street cred is offensive and wrong-headed.

7:34 PM  
Blogger Laylalola said...

Oh no no no no no no no. Hillary Rodham Clinton at some point is accountable for her actions and for her inaction; for her aggressive and for her passive aggressive attacks on women. Make no mistake I'm holding Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for her own ass-saving opportunistic career-furthering yet antiwoman/antifeminist actions as a self-identified feminist and as a lawyer who knows the sexual harassment law.

But because she is also part of the Clinton couple her role runs deeper than merely what I outlined in the paragraph above. She's one-half of the Clinton couple, and one precious Legacy of her and her husband's time in the White House is that together, as a couple, they presided over and directed the final unraveling of the liberal feminist movement in the United States. (More effectively and devastatingly than any Republican ever could have).

8:40 PM  
Anonymous Nella said...

"I believe that path is going to be blazed by a career politican who doesn't give a shit for anything but her own politics, because that's who always gets the presidency."

Witness Mrs Thatcher. The best that can be said is that people like that at least give the next generation of girls the idea that being female isn't a barrier. I have no common ground with the Iron Lady politically, but as a female born in 1981 and surrounded by women who were either full-time homemakers, low-paid part-timers or career airforce wives, Thatcher did at least demonstrate that there was more out there. I guess HRC could play the same role, if only where the girls in question are too young to know the backstory.

4:06 AM  
Blogger Verlch said...

Thatcher also started wars, and went to war, over tiny Islands.

11:42 PM  
Blogger skylanda said...

Verlch, if you're talking about the Falklands, you might want to notice that Argentina invaded first and Britian defended. That whole thing still seems weird to me (why the fuck would Argentina invade? why the fuck would Britain send an armada to recapture some godforsaken territory like the Falklands?), but you might want to notice that Thatcher didn't actually start that fight.

Nella, thanks for putting into words what I was trying to say earlier. I'm under no illuion that the POTUS barrier will be broken by an overly feminist politician. But it still has to be broken. And we could do a lot worse that Clinton - heck, I find Condoleeza Rice's policy choices to be far more Machiavellian that Clintons, and she's even closer to reaching POTUS than any other potential candidate, given her position in the current regime.

12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The objection to the fellatio image I don't get. Was it Gloria Steinem or was it another feminist leader who publically announced that she would not mind fellating Clinton if he supported abortion rights? That was a stab in the back to feminism, pointing it out isn't.

That the Clintons hurt women and hurt feminism in the name of feminism can hardly be avoided. Lumping Hillary in with Bill is part and parcel because when he was elected she proclaimed publically that when we got him, we got her, I think she called it the Blue Light Special, 2 for 1, the first 'co-president.' I for one commend Layla for being honest about the whole thing. Sure it seems trite to bash Hillary and it probably is, but Layla's analysis goes a lot deeper than mere Hillary-bashing and is at least coming from a feminist perspective. Sadly it isn't only conservative men who have hurt feminism.

10:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home