In the first time in its 240 year history, the United States has a female nominee for President in one of its major political parties. Hillary Clinton’s nomination is clearly a landmark moment in American history. It represents a public blow to a traditionally male dominated political system and possibly beyond.
Why couldn't it have been Warren?, I ask rhetorically.
Yes Peter, Clinton's nomination and the process to get there are "troubling" - better descriptives might include corruption, corporate servitude, pandering, destructive and Con Job!
"Yet it must also be asked what type of political and moral role model is she? Throughout her career she has shown a willingness to forsake seemingly any and all progressive principles for personal advantage. Whether as a member of Walmart’s anti-union corporate board as first lady of Arkansas, or promoting racially charged legislation to reduce social welfare and increase mass incarceration as first lady of the United States, or championing a disastrous invasion of Iraq as a Senator or backing anti-democratic coups and dictators across the world as Secretary of State."
"At the very least this is an indictment of the US system. It implies that for a woman to succeed she must be willing to embrace elitism at home and imperialism abroad. There is a certain “clear eyed” Liberal feminism that accepts and even embraces such a “Machiavellianism.”"
Voting for any person because they are a "woman" or member of any group rather than their dedication and support for issues is pathetic and destructive to representative government! IMO......
"Notably, it must be investigated which female voices are being silenced by this feminist victory."
Clinton's nomination is NOT a "feminist victory"! It is a con and charade to empower the DLC corporate whore wing of the Democratic Party! ALL Progressive voices have been silenced by the DNC and Clinton camp!
The three neo-patriarchal feminists that are referenced in this article are the three world "leaders" I fear the most, male or female. In my mind president Morales of Bolivia or president Correa of Ecuador are much more feminist than these Thatcher/Goldwater inspired neo-liberal/neo consevative women!
Speaking of Neo, we need to break through the military/corporate matrix laying ruin upon the planet and her inhabitants. Bernie came close but capitutulated at the break through point. Bernies plight and the plight of so many activists reminds me of the final passage of Pink Floyds album The Wall
" and when they have given they're all some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy banging your head on some mad brothers wall"!
U.S.: "Hooray! Our establishment warmonger has a vagina!"
U.K.: "Been there, done that."
I'm not celebrating the first feminist US presidential nominee, because I'm still waiting for her. It's called 'feminism' because it is about the feminine, the yin to the yan, Mars or Pax. It's not called vaginalism, as if having one is all that's required to be part of the club.
Hillary Clinton is giving real feminists of any gender a bad name. This feminist won't even consider voting for her, and part of the reason is that Clinton is not a feminist.
I'm getting angrier by the minute. I know plenty of men, in different communities of color (including the white one), that have more feminism in their pinkies than Clinton has in her entire body. A segment of voters who really should know better are the feminists so desperate to see a woman in a position of ultimate power that they are knowingly kissing their feminist principles goodbye to achieve it.
Bernie never capitulated. He brought his revolution as far as it could get in the US duopoly. Now WE're poised to take it on.
Rare is the male who understands Feminism.
And just as brands are tossed around equating the policies of war and resource plunder with so-called "Progressive" policy, similar inroads into eroding Feminism's intended meaning (and essence) appear to be well underway.
What is more effective to the Dominant Paradigm than subsuming the would-be different into itself?
This is Yang absorbing Yin so that SHE retains NO independent essence of her own.
I can think of close to 50 occasions where I elaborated on the idea that maleness and femaleness mirror a spectrum. That spectrum may well be the product of 12 archetypal expressions (or entities).
The most macho from the male side is Mars, the god of war. He does not really speak for all men; yet in the same way that one armed and loaded mad gunman can hold an entire room hostage, Mars rules (and those who adhere to this ethos) holds much of humanity hostage.
The punishing father god archetype is Saturn and according to Astrology's recognition of the facets to the "as above, so below" equation, Mars is "exalted" in Saturn's sign kingdom, Capricorn. Essentially, this is the stellar equivalent of the army serving the head of the patriarchal state (by whatever name it goes).
There is a female archetype that identifies with war and power and it is Athena. She denies having been born of a mother and instead, cites her origin through Zeus, her father's head. And Zeus happens to be the head of Olympus, the most powerful CEO on the board.
The type of female who can deny that feminine origin (mother) and do ANYTHING for power, primarily by adapting to the existing status quo that the Mars-Saturn patriarchal state built, is the ONE who will rise and be rewarded. That's because she is a CARRIER of the existing system and certainly no threat to it. That is why women like Maggie Thatcher, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton who applaud State Power are what is allowed (in the way of females) close to the pinnacle of state.
However, since the onset of television and the preponderant, almost mesmerizing powers released through the mass media, for many, packaging (appearance) has come to replace content.
That's why warrior women can call themselves Feminists and by doing so, taint the intended meaning of the term. This is done to really close off the exits. That there IS no alternative.
The appearance is that this is what women do. That powerful women are no different from powerful men. In other words, there is no alternative to the dominant paradigm which is based on war through economics (shock doctrine capitalism), a war against nature and all ecosystems, and war, in general.
What I find particularly repugnant is how many men who self-identify as intelligent, or "not sheeple," or Progressive, or Leftist show ZERO deviation from their right wing brothers in their shared insistence that women represent NO alternative to the status quo.
Either due to a lack of imagination (as well as empathy), or because they ultimately ARE conservative and do not want any change to the status quo (and don't want women to have positions of authority), these males (and they park in this forum) accept the appearance: that women do what men do.
They refuse to internalize the actual logistics: that there is a spectrum of feminine identity and women who identify with war represent a very small segment of it. However, these women, daughters of Athena, do gravitate to positions of power (because they don't challenge the existing patriarchal order of society) and do little to change the metrics.
Why would so many males who post on a Progressive site be so quick to dismiss genuine feminism and what it could offer this world? Jill Stein is a living embodiment of what should be meant by the type of feminism that many women--myself, included--identify with.
Hillary is the female body, appearance of "other" who utlimatey will defend the existing paradigm.
And yes, there are men who get it. They love nature, they CAN love, they relate to women as partners, and they are healthy souls. There are not enough of them... largely due to the forms of programming that begin early in life in conditioning males not to feel, not to care (that to care is to show weakess), and to become cold warriors.
(The comments following Frida Berrigan's piece on what it is to raise children in this type of pro-war American culture show just how hostile the forum's regulars are to any critique of the state that Mars Rules built. And that is why I believe that soldiers or those employed by an MIC subsidiary park here to post during work-day hours. Daily. The majority change their screen names often to hide what otherwise would be as clear as my assertion of it.)
I greatly appreciate this perspective and the specifics of
an underlying amorality to Clinton’s upwardly mobile version of feminism.
I've been fighting the charges of White feminism, in the context of theology, for years, and can feel only that HRC sets us back rather than carries us forward. Wish there'd been a little more than a mention of her promotion of fracking, and a little more editing. But I was shocked to learn she served on Walmart's board while she was the Governor's wife. Shouldn't there be a law against that?
I don't actually find her candidacy a triumph for women. Jill Stein is an honorable woman that has been a candidate for president before and was elected again this year to run for the Green party.
I have always felt Clinton is a terrible role model for young women because she has sold out to the oligarchs. What could you say to a young woman, that it's ok to crush everything around you just to win? Nope, so why would anyone think Clinton is breaking the glass ceiling or doing anything but continuing the terrible neocon policies?
Jill Stein is a much better role model for young women. She is a doctor and a fine person who is running for office. That's the model I would want for my daughters.
Although Mr. Bloom tells us that Clinton "compromised her values", the Clintons' track records unequivocally confirm that they have consistently been corporate money magnets who sell favors to whoever is willing to pay for favors.
Although the Clintons' position on issues varies with the direction of the wind, their ability to peddle influence on a grand scale never does.
Hillary is (and has been for a long time) a crooked politician to whom the laws of perjury, mishandling of classified material--go ask Chelsea, Julian, or Edward about that one!-- don't apply.
Hillary was a lack-luster Senator and Secretary of State. Ah, but she's a woman, (who just happens to have the correct last name!). So let's all join Peggy Lee to celebrate this historic moment:
Great comment, thank you! There is nothing, nada, zilch, that's feminist about that woman.
Midnight Minus Three empirePie July 29th, 2016
Three minutes till midnight
lit up by the light on the hill
the neocon hill of the Hillary shill
a Hillary Hill possessed by possessions,
a desire to rule …..possessed?
The blue dresses look on as star spangled balloons reign down on the faithful mobs chanting USA, USA, USA drowning out the deposed who hoped for a better world.
We recall the brag-ado of the line for the Gadhafi crime
as the glass ceiling plays I am a survivor
and the empire prepares to get lit
Ok, I have to say something about the headline.
How about Clinton's Inspiring and Tweedle-Deepoly Feminism?
I think you are incorrect in your assessment, he did not take the revolution to its logical conclusion(don't get me wrong bernie is and always will be a courages hero for taking on the dark energy encapsulating the planet). But he should not have endorsed her, and I doubt he did so out if fear of the Tump charade. There was undoubtedly other pressure that forced his hand.
He did. not. endorse her. Check his words, with which he was very careful. He never endorsed her, only defeating DJT.
That's my question to people everywhere, but especially American women. Is feminism going to be defined by the likes of HillaryClinton, Madellein Albright and Gloria Steinem? The answer I get from millennial women is " hell no", but not sure where the women of my generation stand given they overwhelmingly voted for the woman who gladly accepted the riches lavished on her by the old guard patriarchic oligarchy? Do you notice the bling that adornes her, all bought and paid for by the oligarchy!
But let's not open the discussion to criticisms from which men are immune. That only confirms the claim that anyone who criticizes HRC is just falling for GOP slander.
I don't know. I witnessed feminists burning their bras, and I don't understand their blind support for her. It is a conundrum when avowed feminists vote the gender of a person over the content of that candidate's character and record of governance. I thought that was the essence of the problem to begin with.