Is being a woman the only thing going for Hillary Clinton?
That’s what the many, many articles like this one floating around these days seem to be implying. OK, yes, I’m sure that’s not their intention. In fact, I’m guessing they hope to sway the female vote with their well-intended, but simplistic, appeal. Unintended effect or not, though, their sad implication remains. And in suggesting that the only ‘right’ thing about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is her gender, these pieces do no favors for feminism (or, well, for Clinton either, for that matter).
For one thing, I can’t imagine how trotting out ‘female solidarity’ will convince very many smart women to change their vote. I certainly hope it takes more effort than that. In fact, in Clinton’s case, I’m thinking a LOT more.
For starters, they’ll have to overcome HRC’s career. Sure, sure, you say, we already know all about that, right? Or, well, we should, anyway. At least, as feminists, we should know how her track record has affected women, anyway. Well, turns out, that may be where the real problem lies.
The thing that really bothers me about these articles is what isn’t said. By arguing to justify someone’s vote without much mention of the actual work she’s done or the masters she serves, implies that women aren’t paying attention, that we aren’t connecting the dots.
And so, I have to ask... are we or aren’t we?
It looks like a lot of us aren’t. Women, many of them smart friends of mine with whom I respectfully disagree (OK, well, maybe not always respectfully — I can be a bitch sometimes), are eating this shit up. It saddens me, that we can be so oblivious, so gullible, so…, dare I say it... shallow.
Nothing is sacred, I guess. After all, while only paltry lip service is paid to the issues, track records or platforms of each candidate, no real substantial policy arguments are ever made in these guilt-laden bids to shore up women’s votes. But hey, we’re women. It’s in our DNA to respond more to guilt than to reason, right?
Yeah… not so fast.
As responsible voters, clearly it’s left to us to do the homework that the media won’t, despite their obligation to inform. And I mean, REALLY inform, not this pap that passes for journalism. (Seriously, how is it even news that she suffers at the hands of a patriarchal society? Ahem… don’t we all?)
And let’s face it, she’s privileged.
Which brings me to the target audience for these articles. I mean, who is it they think they’re talking to when they paint her sad, sad story of hardship? Would a single mother of four struggling below the poverty line relate? Or the Libyan widow?
H-yeah, guess again.
No, these articles are clearly aimed at “struggling” affluent women who, blind to their own privilege, like to moan about how terribly hard it all is.
Awe. (I did say I was a bitch, right?...)
Y’see, it’s articles like these that perpetuate an international opinion that Americans are spoiled, incapable of thinking about anyone else but themselves. Is it any surprise?
In Hillary Clinton’s case, her career speaks volumes about who her real priority is. Take the private prisons she supports. Clinton’s Presidential campaign accepted almost the same amount from prison lobbyists as Marco Rubio’s did. Yet, most experts agree that the for-profit penal system destroys communities, and weakens families. Non-violent drug arrests make up the bulk of prison populations today, and despite being fairly victimless crimes, the families are almost always left socially and financially crippled by the loss.
Curiously, the ethnic makeup of prisons turns out to be way browner than that sesame toasted tan she often sports. Yes, although white drug use rates are far higher, African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate. Prisons are also profiteering from illegal immigrants too. So when Clinton claims that “immigrants are vital to our economy," is this what she’s getting at? Because we all know Hillary loves immigrants, amirite?
While we’re at it, let’s talk a bit about the Clinton Foundation, the weapons deals it facilitates, and the sick donations it collects in the form of speakers fees. Aside from lining her pockets, and possibly those of her friends too, it does little else. Save maybe to make mince of the women and children in those conflict areas she’s gunning for (yes, yes, a pun, get over it).
And, of course, there’s Wall Street. Predatory lending shackles millions of poor people, and do I need to remind folks that women, especially female-headed, single-parent households still suffer the most? Moreover, African American women are 256% more likely to receive subprime loans than white men... Seriously? Remember those speakers fees? And how about the campaign donors? Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., CitiBank… yes, all those exemplary beneficiaries of corporate welfare are lining up, eager to invest in Hillary’s future. No surprise there.
But wait, I haven’t even started on the international HRC effect yet.
No one argues that she's a war hawk. Here again, as ISIS fills the vacuum the war machine leaves behind, their hateful misogyny wreaks havoc with the culture, and the true victims of these conflicts continue to be predominantly innocent women and children. So let’s be honest: who is she really helping when she angles for those drones, those boots on the ground, those no-fly zones? And why only ever in the middle east? Is it because North Korea is less of a bad player? Could economic interests possibly be a factor?
Actually, I quite admire the holistic fiscal nature of HRC’s strategy (if it weren’t so machiavellian) because, c’mon, all that war shit really does play out so well on Wall St., too, doesn't it.
OK, but now, let’s take a quick look at her Democratic opponent…
Bernie Sanders has consistently supported measures for the minimum wage, family leave, expanding Social Security, lifting the cap on taxable income, marriage equality, and more. He also wants to defund most military actions abroad. These are precisely the legislative policies that will benefit women and children most.
Turns out, Bernie is in good company too. Redistribution is considered by many progressive feminists as the best way to improve life for ALL women.
So I ask, who’s the real feminist ally here, then?
Well, despite HRC’s membership to the vagina club thereby making her the natural first choice (that is if packaging is your only measure), the old white guy has proven himself a better fit for the role. See, where Hillary shouts “let go the ladder, I’m up,” Bernie ‘gets it’ that being a good politician means that it’s not about him at all, but that it’s about making things better for the rest of us.
Clinton, not so much.
Now, if you don’t believe me when I suggest that HRC isn’t a progressive feminist, one who gets the big picture, well then, maybe you might believe these other, smarter, feminists:
Here’s Liza Featherstone, a contributing editor to the Nation, and editor of the forthcoming book “False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Clinton.”
And here, the socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization ‘Solidarity’ discuss HRC and Corporate Feminism.
And, last but not least, here’s Sophie Stephenson writing for CounterPunch, and, well, just telling it like it is.
Still, the HRC campaign machine continues to flog her brand of weak, self-serving feminism, hoping we’ll all buy it just the same.
And yet, in record numbers, young feminists are choosing to support the old white guy instead. Why? Are they so ill-informed? Are they so misguided?
No. Quite the opposite.
Young people tend to be more marketing savvy than we older folk. Having grown up with it, they spot transparent propaganda more easily. Many of these young women, therefore, prefer to look deeper, to do their own research. They are choosing to go with hard facts over empty rhetoric.
And they aren’t letting their own struggle with patriarchy get in the way of objective thinking, either.
So maybe these women who turn their backs on Hillary Clinton are doing it because they’re actually a lot more sophisticated than we think they are. Maybe they represent the future, where a more nuanced and informed feminism prevails… Maybe they’re Feminism 2.0, the better, faster, smarter version of ourselves.
(Of course, they might also be waiting for Elizabeth Warren, too, who knows).
Because — and this is what it all boils down to really — what's really at stake here? Is it the fate of one privileged woman's bid for power on the untenable grounds of solely being a woman? Or is it the fate of millions of (mostly brown) poor, marginalized, and systemically terrorized human beings, at home and around the world?
Let’s face it, HRC consistently betrays values many feminists hold dear. Namely, the welfare of all women everywhere as being equal to our own. Unfortunately, in light of these shameless grabs for the feminist vote that conveniently (maybe even deliberately) obfuscate her performance record, I doubt Hillary could ever say the same.