Feminism: It's got fuck-all to do with Hillary
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
Y'know, I was going to write another post about Hillary Clinton … but I'm so fucking sick of her, I don't have anything reasonable or intelligent to say on the matter. The only way she could count herself ahead in the Democratic race at the end was to claim votes she "won" in a state where her only remaining rival wasn't on the fucking ballot. Fuck her. Her candidacy has done more to jeopardize the Democrats' chance at the White House than everything and everyone else put together … and anyone who's willing to destroy the entire team's chance at a win in their own fucking megalomaniacal quest for personal glory ought to be kicked off the team and banned from the sport forever.
Send Hillary home, and keep her there. If ever in my lifetime there was a woman who ought to be kept in the kitchen where she can't do any more harm than burning the lasagna, it's Hillary Lost-all-touch-with-fucking-reality Clinton.
If she were a man in the current Presidential race, she'd have been laughed home already (the theoretical "he" would never have recovered from the Bosnia sniper fire bullshit/blunder) … but thanks to her fucking ovaries (and her last name, let's be honest here), while she continually refuses to concede — at the expense of the entire Democratic Party, and women's credibility in politics throughout the nation, even after Obama secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination — her rabid supporters stick by her like glue. She is not a woman who would be where she is today, if she was held to the same standards as an equivalent man.
You can go ahead and call me sexist, or a sell-out, or whatever you want, for being a woman who dares denounce the Great Hillary … but I couldn't care less. That's one of the big problems with modern feminism: It has more to do with adhering to a strict ideological doctrine, than any actual conviction that women can be whoever and whatever they want. And the real mindfuck in the whole deal is that different camps of self-proclaimed feminists have different versions of the doctrine you're supposed to subscribe to before you can get their stamp of approval.
Fuck that.
And with that, we segue ever-so-gracefully into my little gender politics rant on feminism …
Men and women should have the same opportunities in life, bar none. Equal pay for equal job duties, along with equal basic requirements for equal jobs, whether you're working in the upper echelons of corporate life, or serving in the military. No more, no less. That, to me, is what feminism should be: not denying anyone a chance to do what they want to do in life, whether or not they have anything swinging between their legs.
You shouldn't have to credit women with any special psychic or emotional talent to call yourself a feminist … I've met many women (myself included, not so long ago) who are every bit as out of touch with their emotions and/or incapable of communicating with emotional honesty as any man on earth. I've met plenty of women who were terrible mothers. I've met women who were quicker to solve an argument with violence than most men I've ever known. And then there's Hillary, proving that ruthlessly pursuing selfish personal aggrandizement at the expense of the greater good is hardly a behavioral pattern exclusive to The Man.
You shouldn't have to proclaim that all heterosexual sex is rape to call yourself a feminist. You shouldn't have to believe that all female sex workers are victims to call yourself a feminist. You shouldn't have to dismiss all men as opressors, or slander male feminists as mythical "unicorns" to call yourself a feminist. All you should have to do is believe in, and speak out for, every woman's right to complete self-determination.
Which I do.
I think if a woman wants to join the military, she should be able to fill any position for which she is physically qualified. Granted, there are a lot of positions where women's lesser average upper body strength will prevent most of them from qualifying, but that should be the only restriction. (And if a man in combat derelicts his duty as a soldier, so he can run over and "protect" a female comrade — probably the most common argument I've heard against allowing female soldiers in combat — he is the problem in the unit, not her.)
I think if a woman wants to have fuck-tons of sexual partners, it shouldn't make her any more of a whore (or any more of a victim) than a man who does the same.
I think a woman who gets off on being the sub in Dominance/submission games shouldn't have to worry about her sex life being written off as buying into patriarchal oppressive stereotypes (but one wonders, if the woman prefers being the Dom, does that make her some kind of gender-liberation warrior?). As long as everyone's a consenting adult, one's sex life should have fuck all to do with one's moral or political credentials.
I think if a woman doesn't want to have children, that should be just dandy. Reproduction is hardly considered a requirement for male self-fulfillment, nor should it be for women.
I think if a woman wants to marry a man, have babies, and stay home to devote herself to raising her children as her primary vocation, that should be supported too. Fucking hell, raising kids is a goddamn hard job!
And if I see a female political candidate who I happen to think is the sort of bloodless, dishonest, ruthless harpy who gives strong, ambitious women a bad name, I cheerfully reserve the right to call her out on it, and not vote for her. There's more to feminism, and a hell of a lot more to being an admirable, decent person, than the absence of a cock.
Good riddance, Hillary. Now, let's just hope Obama doesn't kowtow to your mindless, rabid supporters, and ask you to be his runningmate.
I believe strongly in equality, along racial and gender lines but.. I'd rather see it called what it is, COMMON SENSE, rather than feminism. That just makes it sound like some kind of cult movement.
Reminds of me the worst "atheist". I hate that word. Why do we need special words to describe the SANE people? When did that happen?
Blah.. I'm tired… ZzzZZzZZZzzzz…..
4th June 2008 at 2:22 am | permalink |When I was in the military, I was opposed to women in combat as a general rule. Mostly this was because the military has a tendency to skew the rules for women. At the time I was serving, male Marines were required to run 3 mi. for their physical fitness test. Women were only required to run 1.5 mi. That's bullshit.
Let's level the playing field. Instead of having gender-based physical fitness requirements, let's have role-base physical fitness requirements. If you're in the infantry then you have to meet an objective set of physical fitness requirements, regardless of whether or not you're male or female. If you're a desk pogue (a "recline ranger," "in the rear with the gear") then you have a different (lesser) set of physical fitness standards to maintain. Because just the same as we don't need some petite little flower in the middle of a firefight, we also don't need some doughy, fat-body who breaks into a sweat schlepping his fat ass to the chow hall–unless that doughy, fat-body is really good at humping the machine gun (a.k.a., a "pack mule").
That was one of the things I loved about the message of the movie "G.I. Jane": She rejected the adjusted standards and insisted on being held to the same standards as the men. The same physical fitness standards, the same grooming standards, etc.
Which brings me back to my original point. While I was opposed to women in combat, as a general rule, I would have supported it completely if it would have meant women had to abide by the same standards and expectations as men.
But again … that's just common fucking sense. ;-)
4th June 2008 at 5:02 am | permalink |Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Just because it would be great to vote for the first female president doesn't mean that I have to vote for anything with vagina. It has struck me since the beginning of this whole kafuffle that a lot these rabid Clinton supporters seem a bit…sexist. I mean, isn't the point of gender equality that we reach a point were we cast our vote for the candidate we feel will do the best job regardless of gender?
Personally, I agree with Becca about women in the military. There should be one set of requirements for everyone, period. And they should have to shave their head too.
4th June 2008 at 6:31 am | permalink |Fucking yes! I could not agree with the post more. Bravo.
4th June 2008 at 6:40 am | permalink |I've mentioned in earlier post that I'm not a big Hillary fan, but damn! What does she want?
I find it interesting how we can use paragraph after paragraph discussing why people say or do certain things (racism, culture/environment, gender…etc); yet, after all the $10 dollar words and hypotheses, we seem to generally agree common sense (or lack of) plays a significant role. Maybe the most significant role (in my opinion).
Have we found something that can transcend cultural, racial, gender and religious barriers?
4th June 2008 at 7:22 am | permalink |DavidGX: Haha, exactly, I've been wondering that since 4th grade =P Never had a taste for 'ism's myself.
4th June 2008 at 9:05 am | permalink |Interesting points.
I'm not sure if self-determination is pragmatically possible (for men or women). If you're going to build your feminist philosophy around this construct, you may have to first demonstrate that it's meaningful. I'm not saying I could *prove* that self-determination is impossible, but I think it's up for debate.
4th June 2008 at 9:47 am | permalink |@DavidGX & TheSister: "Why do we need special words to describe the SANE people? When did that happen?" I think it happened about the same time the lunatics took over the asylum… Oh, wait, that's pretty much the whole of human history, isn't it? ;-)
Seriously? I totally agree … but "special" designations have always applied to the minority group in any situation. And "common sense" is anything but common, as a general rule.
@Becca: Yep, that pretty much sums it up … I guess I didn't go into much detail on that one, but when I said "physically qualified for" I should have specified that means qualified under the same standards.
@gesikah: "Just because it would be great to vote for the first female president doesn't mean that I have to vote for anything with vagina." Amen! Hell, if I'd been a voting age citizen of the UK at the time, I wouldn't have voted for Thatcher either. ;-) And yes, women in the military should totally have to shave their heads too! Hell, my hair used to be about and inch long … it was great! Very low maintenance.
@Rick: "Have we found something that can transcend cultural, racial, gender and religious barriers?" Only among folks who actually possess common sense. ;-)
@Kavan Wolfe: "…you may have to first demonstrate that it's meaningful." Only if I'm arguing with philosophers. ;-) Seriously though, self-determination is not provable in any scientific sense of the word proof, so I fail to see how "proving" it could be considered necessary or important to my argument here.
On a tangent for a moment … self-determination and personal responsibility are two sides of the same coin (or two edges of the same blade, depending on your attitude towards life), in my view. If a woman had the *choice* to compete equally in society with men, she could also no longer blame anyone else for her failure to succeed (personally, I already choose not to blame anyone but myself for my position in life, but I'm not trying to claw my way up the ol' corporate or military ladder either).
4th June 2008 at 11:46 am | permalink |I have to agree here. Hillary is in this for her own personal power trip, and a sense of entitlement. "IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ME." Even her speech last night was like that, me me me, blah blah. She needs to go away. That said I don't really understand the need to destroy the other side if you want to be equal with them. It reminds me of the Rush song - The Trees. If you want to be equal fine, but realize being equal means that people will get to choose WHAT THEY WANT. Not what you think they should want. I enjoy sex, the women I have sex with always seemed to enjoy it. They never seemed victimized to me, especially when they jumped on top of me. I really do not get it. I'd love someone to explain the insanity to me.
It also proves something important. No matter what you do some ppl will always see what they want to see and twist it to that if need be. The Firefly critic was a great example really. Talk about not getting it.
4th June 2008 at 1:28 pm | permalink |'segue' - fuck off!
(I would have posted a serious comment on this but I was just blown away by a single word.)
4th June 2008 at 5:27 pm | permalink |I like the way you think :-)
5th June 2008 at 12:31 am | permalink |@Larry: Yes, and yes. :-)
@Ian: I looked it up to make sure I used segue correctly after that comment … and I did. hehehe
5th June 2008 at 2:01 am | permalink |@Ian- I looked "segue" up as well ((just to be sure) and I couldn't figure out what would be offensive. I checked every resource I could think of. Just curious.
5th June 2008 at 2:33 am | permalink |Brava! I couldn't have ranted better on the subject. Hillary has damaged, but hopefully not set back, the chance of a woman being president. Initially, she made sense to me - it takes a certain degree of cunning and ruthlessness to beat the Nazis - er - Republicans (sorry!) at this game. And she has some good ideas. But then she began to pander to every thing that moron amerikans wanted - c'mon, getting rid of the gasoline tax to reduce prices at the pump? The more the campaign wore on, the clearer it became that her Republican roots were showing - she is McCain light just like McCain was Bush light (now he's morphed into third term of the fourth reich).
Alphabitch, this one of your finest rants!
5th June 2008 at 6:19 am | permalink |Ummm … what could possibly be wrong with using the word "segue"?
5th June 2008 at 7:22 am | permalink |You did use the word segue correctly, but by explicitly using the word in an unrelated sentence it means that you didn't actually segue into your next section. It was a self referencing sentence that destroyed its own meaning, awesome.
5th June 2008 at 11:39 am | permalink |@Becca, Rick
Rick didn't understand what could be wrong with segue because Ian was impressed with the word usage and said "fuck off", which I assume lead Rick to think there was something offensive with the word.
By the way, I agree with everything in the article and enjoyed the eloquence in this amalgamation of a post.
5th June 2008 at 11:48 am | permalink |@Dr. Atomix: Yeah, I quite liked her as first lady, and I was pretty happy to see her get into the Senate … but her behavior on this campaign has, in case you didn't notice, really turned me off. ;-)
@Autodidact: Well yes, the "ever-so-gracefully" was meant to indicate the sentence was a bit tongue in cheek. hehe
5th June 2008 at 2:46 pm | permalink |People in Australia are amazed at the vast amount of money the whole Presidential nomination race costs. Personally, I would not vote for any of the candidates on either side. But then, our own politicians are no better, it's just that we don't spend megabucks on the leadership selection process.
19th July 2008 at 2:31 pm | permalink |@ratbags - "People in Australia are amazed at the vast amount of money the whole Presidential nomination race costs. Personally, I would not vote for any of the candidates on either side. But then, our own politicians are no better, it's just that we don't spend megabucks on the leadership selection process.
What I find really amazing is that we (Americans) actually pay (donations) for the privilege of being lied to.
20th July 2008 at 7:55 am | permalink |