- Special Sections
- Public Notices
Well, it’s happened.
Just when you thought America had evolved to a point where it didn’t really matter the gender or race of the people running for president, the old-school feminists have pulled out the “women are oppressed” card to guilt their sisters into voting for Hillary Clinton.
In a recent essay “Goodbye to All That (#2),” Robin Morgan wrote she’s voting for Hillary “not because she’s a woman—but because I am.” That's a nicely written but completely ridiculous sentiment she prefaces with a laundry list of horrible things that have happened and continue to happen to women in America and throughout the world.
“So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women,” Morgan wrote.
“Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings and attempted gynocides.”
So, voting for Hillary is going to change all that? She’s going to fix the all the female oppression in the past, present and future?
What’s even more disturbing is that Morgan and one of my former idols, Gloria Steinem, have started breaking out the “who’s more victimized” argument, pitting African-American men against women, from Morgan’s puzzling statement about slavery to this nugget from a New York Times op-ed piece written by Steinem:
“Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).”
Don’t vote for Obama, ladies! Black men were allowed to vote first! What?
African-Americans may have been given the legal right first, but they were also denied the opportunity to vote with horrible violence for decades.
Now look, she’s got us arguing about oppression again. My question, which I keep asking when I read these things, is: Why is this an argument for whose qualified to be president?
And by the way, did you all catch that parenthetical phrase? Come on, women, who has been a more “obedient family member” than Mrs. Stand-by-Her-Man?
I’m not knocking Clinton’s accomplishments by any means. She’s not Mary Bono.
She’s worked hard and has political savvy, knowledge and skills she’s used throughout her career. But would she have been elected a New York senator without her husband’s name recognition?
If you really want me to vote for Hillary, please, tell me what she’s done that you think would be good for America.
Tell me why her voting for the war and then supposedly changing her mind was perfectly acceptable. Tell me how someone half the country despises will win against the party that’s been in power for the past eight years.
Just don’t tell me the way to prevent women from being raped, tortured and denied rights is to vote for Hillary Clinton for president.
Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. And I’m not that gullible.