December 7, 2007

"On paper, they look an awful lot like Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"They are professional women of a certain age — politically active Democrats, liberals, unabashed feminists who remember what it was like to be told they could not become firefighters or university department heads, let alone president of the United States of America."

So why aren't they for Hillary Clinton?
"She leaves me cold," said Sidonie Smith, who chairs the University of Michigan English department. "I hate to say that. It's a very strange feeling to have."
The classic feminist diagnosis would be: sexism. Did you think feminism immunized you from sexism? You consciously favor the advancement of women, but then when you look at a particular woman who is at the point of advancement, you think: Yes, but not her.

But is this what we are feeling about Hillary? I think not. Hillary is not just another professional woman of my generation, who ought to inspire sisterly empathy. She is a throwback to an earlier era, when women found their place through their husbands. The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man — a powerful man who seems to have diminished quite a number of women. According to the article, I'm responding the way women my age respond:
For many, it's visceral. While they struggled to break through institutional barriers in the workplace, Clinton hitched her star to her man and followed him to the top. When his philandering imperiled his political career, she not only pulled him out of the fire but helped orchestrate attacks against his accusers.
Exactly.
For others, the anger they feel is purely political. Some are disappointed by her support of the Iraq war, her reluctance to take stands on some hot-button issues or the fact that she has re-created herself as a centrist.
For me, these are reasons to support her.

Much more in the article. Let me just extract one more line: 
[I]n an interview with LA Weekly last May, Jane Fonda called Clinton "a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."
The dreaded double-V! Ventriloquist with a vagina! Wow, Ms. Fonda is kind of crude. Also, inaccurate: Hillary doesn't wear a skirt.

ADDED: As a commenter notes, it's unlikely that Fonda meant to cast Hillary as the ventriloquist. Didn't she mean that the patriarchy is the ventriloquist and Hillary is the dummy? 

110 comments:

Bob said...

Also, inaccurate: Hillary doesn't wear a skirt.

Doesn't want the cankles to show. Besides, Hillary wears the pants in the family, Huma the skirt....

Paul Zrimsek said...

I didn't even know we had a patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina-- but did Fonda really mean to suggest that Hillary is the ventriloquist and the patriarchy the dummy, instead of the other way around?

Windbag said...

If Hillary wore a skirt, would Bill chase it?

Mortimer Brezny said...

The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man — a powerful man who seems to have diminished quite a number of women.

The proper term is phallus.

And, in line with the Greek mythological theme, "a powerful man" more aptly is "a silver-tongued satyr".

Sheepman said...

The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man

Fair enough, but do you have the same resentment towards George W?

SteveR said...

Ann: The reasons you might find to support her are issues which have changed and likely will change. The reasons you don't like her have not changed, and most certainly will not. I know you are tempted but everytime you see them together, you're going to remember.

Synova said...

Remarks like Jane Fonda's are one reason I really can't bring myself to identify as feminist.

Don't these people listen to themselves?

I dislike Hillary strongly. (Scary beyond all reason... evil, but at least she's not stupid.) You'd think I'd chuckle at Jane's remark but it offends me more than Hillary does for sure.

It embeds the creed that women do NOT have a variety of opinions, that if you disagree from the party line you are channeling the patriarchy. Since I've been accused of being told what to think by men because I am conservative and libertarian it hits a sore spot.

Being told what to think by men? Is that any worse than being told what to think by Jane Fonda and subject to abuse if I have my *own* ideas?

Hillary is evil, not stupid.

Jane Fonda is stupid.

Steven said...

It's a mistake that Clinton doesn't wear skirts; women look much more authoritative in them than they do in pants. Would Margaret Thatcher have been as effective in pantsuits?

Roger said...

Would someone remind of Jane Fonda's intellectual credentials? I keep forgetting.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Barbarella, Roger. Barbarella.

George said...

Patriarchy!

I didn't know anyone actually ever used that word.

But Jane Fonda does.

She should visit Qatif.

john said...

I guess I'm a bit dense this morning, but for the life of me I can't remember who told women that they could not be president of the United States of America. Was there some recent constitutional amendment that I didn't hear about?

Oops, nevermind, I found it. The statment came from the WPGA*. I shoulda known.


*Womens Professional Grievance Association

john said...

Dang, I found something else out too: It seems that a woman can't just become president of the United States of America, she actually has to win an election.

Roger said...

Now I remember, Mort! Thanks

rcocean said...

Could be that Eleanor Roosevelt is the ventriloquist and Hillary is the dummy.

Fonda has always been a dummy - she doesn't need a ventriloquist.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Being a woman of a certain age....I dislike Hillary for many reasons. Like Ann I think that Hillary has used her "position" as the wife of Bill Clinton to obtain power. Her grasping personal ambitions have caused her to throw any pretenses of being feminist under the bus and to purposely harm others and diminish other women, yet she wants to play that feminist card.

Personally, I think she is a narcissistic sociopath with no true feelings for anyone but herself.
Read these descriptions of a sociopath and tell me you don't recognize Bill and Hillary here. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html

1.Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2.Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3.Authoritarian
4.Secretive
5.Paranoid
6.Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7.Conventional appearance
8.Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9.Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
10.Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
11.Unable to feel remorse or guilt
12.Extreme narcissism and grandiose
13.May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

So while Hillary wears the mask of a normal person, we have this gut feeling that there is something missing inside.

On a political level she scares the crap out of me. A dedicated socialist/communist who will not be swayed by reasonable argument. If she gets the power she has always wanted the US and Democracy will be in the most extreme danger.

My dislike of her has nothing to do with her gender. I believe that the time HAS come where a women would be elected President. Just not Hillary...please God...not Hillary.

jeff said...

I would have to agree with synova. I dislike Hillary, but that statement is just idiotic.

sheepman "Fair enough, but do you have the same resentment towards George W?"

What do you mean? Do you think W was voted in because we all liked his dad? Not enough to give him a second term, mind you. Or are you saying he wouldn't have been in position to run for office had it not been his dad? I don't know if he would have been elected Gov if his same was Smith for the first term but he was elected to a second term and that was his jumping off point to running for President. And if so, couldn't the same thing be said about Al Gore? Yet no one was voting for Gore because of who his father was. Maybe when he initially ran for Congress, but not since then. You could make a excellent case against Ted Kennedy and his nephew? Son? first getting into office off of their name, and maybe staying in office because of their name. I think the problem with Hillary is that she rode her husband to a Senate seat, and now is trying to ride him to the presidency. What reason(s) as a voter, do you see Hillary has to offer, compared to anyone else, other than being married to Bill?

Simon said...

DBQ, that could be a checklist for modern American liberalism, not just Hillary.

Synova said...

Seriously, George, if you didn't realize that the word "patriarchy" is in active and common use you just haven't listened to feminists lately.

Or at least a certain sort of feminist.

In real terms I probably am a feminist... so long as you ignore all of my politics and all of my opinions except for the one that views people primarily as equal individuals rather than defining them by their plumbing.

Doyle said...

According to the article, I'm responding the way women my age respond

Really? Does the article assess your personal response to Hillary Clinton and deem it "normal"? Or does it describe other women your age in such a way that you can identify?

Because let's just say I'd be awfully surprised if it was the former.

Bob said...

Jeff, thank you for that visual "she rode her husband to a Senate seat, and now is trying to ride him to the presidency." Lunch is now all over my desk...

I was under the mistaken impression that fights amongst siblings were the worst. Now I see it is really ugliest between feminists.

Middle Class Guy said...

Hillary Clinton is a commodity, a lnown name- for what ever reason. She is parlaying her name to seek power. She is not parlaying her qulifications or her being a woman.

If it was not for Bill, she would be just another second rate lawyer. Bill was only a fourth rate lawyer- hence his political career.

She benefitted from his being governor by getting plum legal posts and board positions. She benefitted from him by being First Lady. She has no talent of her own- education does not equate with intellect or talent.

Hillary is a phony feminist- she spouts the platitudes but walks a different path. The path of Hillary.

She is the inevitable candidate though, she is the only one; ask her, she will tell you.

Doyle said...

If George W. Bush had been born George W. Smith, he'd be a long-haul trucker.

vnjagvet said...

Other than the ad hom against the bloghostess and an attempt to change the subject to W, Doyle seems to have no opinion on the merits of the observations about Hillary.

I wonder if he secretly agrees with them?

Sheepman said...

Jeff:"What do you mean? Do you think W was voted in because we all liked his dad?"

No, it was more a reaction to the phrase "under the aegis of a powerful man". Georg W was helped greatly by the power of his father, both in business and in politics. I don't think he would have come anywhere near the presidency on his own. The same with JFK.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but she isn't the first to benefit from a family connection. Should she be especially criticized because she's a women and the family connection is through her husband?

Zeb Quinn said...

For others, the anger they feel is purely political. Some are disappointed by her support of the Iraq war, her reluctance to take stands on some hot-button issues or the fact that she has re-created herself as a centrist.

For me, these are reasons to support her.


Do you not permit yourself to at least take notice of the fact that for Hillary these are not heart-felt or reasoned positions, based on principle, but that it's all just part of some kind of crafty political triangulation calculus? She doesn't really actually believe any of that stuff. It's political grifting.

I'm sure her supporters find their reasons somewhere to support her, but these things ARE NOT reasons to support her, no matter which side you're on. Unless you're looking for a way to rationalize voting for her. Or if you're a cynic.

George said...

Synova--

"Patriarchy" is a goofy word for a movie star to use.

Ain't nobody going to see no movies starring Reese Witherspoon or Catherine Zeta Jones if they start a-talking like that.

Doyle said...

Other than the ad hom against the bloghostess and an attempt to change the subject to W, Doyle seems to have no opinion on the merits of the observations about Hillary.

I wonder if he secretly agrees with them?


Both my earlier comments were on topic.

I wasn't "changing the subject" to Bush. I was pointing out that if you're now insisting that people attain the presidency only on their individual merits and disqualify people with family connections to former presidents, then you should do it consistently.

Doyle said...

Further, I make no secret of my not liking Hillary a great deal, and obviously she wouldn't be a leading presidential contender if everyone didn't know who she was already.

But if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. My objection to her candidacy has to do with the fact that I don't think she'd be as good a president as Obama or Edwards.

Synova said...

""Patriarchy" is a goofy word for a movie star to use.
Ain't nobody going to see no movies starring Reese Witherspoon or Catherine Zeta Jones if they start a-talking like that."

True.

And probably even profound.

Somehow.

Hoosier Daddy said...

sheepman "Fair enough, but do you have the same resentment towards George W?"

What do you mean? Do you think W was voted in because we all liked his dad?


jeff I'm betting dollars to donuts that was a reference to Cheney and not George Sr.

Cause we all know that Cheney is the ventriloquist and Bush is the dummy.

ricpic said...

Fine pickle we're in. Give women the franchise and have everything devolve to the level of feelings.

Revenant said...

I want to know when I'm going to get invited to join The Patriarchy. I mean, I'm male. White. Earn a good salary. I even vote Republican now and then. What does it take? Where's the love?

Simon said...

Middle Class Guy said...
"Hillary Clinton is a commodity, a lnown name- for what ever reason. She is parlaying her name to seek power."

And Doyle said...
"[O]bviously she wouldn't be a leading presidential contender if everyone didn't know who she was already."

That's different to, say, Ulysses S. Grant in what way?

By the way, it's hard to imagine a more damning assesment of a candidate that they're less able to be President than Obama or Edwards, but fortunately for Hillary (and America at large) I doubt that's an assesment that many clear-thinking voters share.

George said...
"'Patriarchy' is a goofy word for a movie star to use. Ain't nobody going to see no movies starring Reese Witherspoon or Catherine Zeta Jones if they start a-talking like that."

I can assure all concerned that I'll be going to see movies with Reese Witherspoon in them even if she debases herself by indulging in one of the present slew of dreadful attempts to capitalize on anti-war sentiment that even NPR's film critics have admitted are abject critical and commercial failures. ... Oops. Too late. Anyhoo, anyone who could leven "Legally Blonde 2" from horrific to merely awful deserves some kind of plaudit. There really ought to be an award given annually to the actor who makes the most out of the worst script.

Roger said...

Rev: I will send you an invite--not just anyone can join you know. You also have to provide references from at least two members of the VRWC (which meets on alternate thursdays following the rotary)

Of course there is the Groucho Marx criterion about joining a group that would have Groucho as a member.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"I want to know when I'm going to get invited to join The Patriarchy. ... What does it take? Where's the love?"

Rev, they let me sit in once when they needed a bass player on short notice, but I wasn't invited to stay on as a permanent member. Personality clash. I think their keyboard player left recently, though, so maybe you can get in for their tour of Saudi Arabia?

ricpic said...

You have to vote Republican all the time. Like me. Then, maybe, just maybe, me and the other boys in the smoke filled back room will consider you for membership in the no gals need apply patriarchy.
Har har har har har.........

rcocean said...

The Patriarchy hasn't given me an invite and the Good old Boys Club won't return my calls. Where's my share of the undeserved wealth and power?

I thought I was entitled.

P. Rich said...

What DBQ said.

So, Althouse. Doesn't straddling the Hillary! fence become uncomfortable after a while?

ricpic said...

You have to jettison your ambiguous genitalia before joining the patriarchy. It's a sacrifice but think of the rewards.

Joan said...

Should she be especially criticized because she's a women and the family connection is through her husband?

Using marriage to jockey for power is tacky, and often transparently sleazy. You don't choose your parents or the family you're born into; you do choose your spouse. And if you choose your spouse specifically for what he (Bill Clinton) or she (Teresa Heinz) can do for you professionally, well, that reveals something less than savory about your character.

reader_iam said...

Revenant: Perhaps you need to put this book on your list for Santa.

A sample:

The Patriarch

More noble than the valiant deeds of shining knights of yore,
More powerful than earthly plights that make the rich man poor,
More kingly than a royal throne or a lion with his pride,
Is he whose babes sleep well at night sure Daddy will provide.

There is a spirit in this land and Jezebel’s her name.
She’s calling you to leave your home for power, fun, and fame.
She wants your wife, your children too — she’ll never compromise,
Until your house is torn in two by listening to her lies.

But though a hundred thousand million men may fall prey to her lures,
And wives en masse leave home in search of “more fulfilling” chores,
Though preachers praise, and friends embrace, her pagan plan of death,
Stand strong and quit you like a man with every blessed breath.

Stand strong and rise, O man of God, to meet this noble call,
The battle is not new you see, it’s been here since the Fall.

Your wife is your helpmeet, my friend, and not another man’s,
So care for her and keep her far from Mistress Jezi’s plans.
Protect, provide, and give to her your undivided life,
This is the dear one of your youth, your precious bride, your wife.

And rally to those tiny ones who trust you for their care —
A lifetime spent discipling them’s a lifetime pure and rare.
For when they put their hand in yours and know a Daddy’s love,
You’re showing them a picture of the Father from above.

Look not toward worldly goal or gain, or for your liberty,
Look only into their sweet eyes to find your ministry.
Devote your heart and sacrifice and make your manly mark —
There is none so great as he who finds his call as patriarch.

~Douglas W. Phillips


(Text found here.)

Roger said...

Rev: The dark secret of the patriarchy is the Berke Breathed actually depicted it: its the men's couch and populated by Steve Dallas, Opus, and the cockroach. The feminists dont want that secret out, so thats why they quashed Breathed's career--he really didnt stop Bloom county because of artistic reasons--they threatened him with the Hillary nutcracker.

EnigmatiCore said...

I was just thinking that what this Friday needed was a healthy debate over Jane Fonda's view of Hillary Clinton's vagina.

Trooper York said...

Madame: Ladies, are you tired of keeping your traps shut when your old man screws up real bad? Do you have to try to be in control of your temper when he does something so stupid even you can't believe it? Are you fed-up with being the nice quiet little wife when he can be a dumb loud-mouth oaf of a husband any time he pleases? If you answer yes to any of these questions, it's time you ordered your very own Inflatible Husband Doll. Yes folks, this wintery little doll will just sit there and look frightened no matter what you say.
[looks at it]
Madame: Lord, what a puss. Yes, you can curse, cajole, conive, rant, rave and ramble and throw ultimatums at 'em all night long and he won't ever answer back. Not even once.
[to doll]
Madame: You idiot moron! How dare you? You flirt with that little polynesian waitress? See that ladies? The damned doll has no gambelonium. Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Inflatible Husband Doll. And if you don't even like him you can take a pin and...
[pops doll and it begins to fly around the room]
Madame: Did you get a close-up of that? Yes ladies and gentlemen, the Inflatible Husband Doll. Available at Pretend-O-Rama and your local If-Only Stores.
Madame: Just remember who is the ventriloquist and who is the dummy.
Announcer: Available in the Presidential model, cigars not included.
(Waylon and Madame, 1982)

Sheepman said...

Joan: And if you choose your spouse specifically for what he (Bill Clinton) or she (Teresa Heinz) can do for you professionally, well, that reveals something less than savory about your character.
Do you really believe that HRC married Bill to further her professional career? He wasn't wealthy or well connected then and I believe she had the better prospects, career wise, after law school.

You could certainly make the case that she stayed with him to further her career. But how many other politicians have refrained from divorcing spouses for political reasons?

Kirby Olson said...

Jane Fonda ought to know. She used Tom Hayden, a left leader, to get a little recognition. Then later she teamed up with Ted Turner.

It's not like Ms. Fonda goes out with anonymous men with no leadership potential just for the love.

Sheepman said...

Jane Fonda ought to know. She used Tom Hayden, a left leader, to get a little recognition.
Yeah, and Tom used her to get a lot of recognition.

EnigmatiCore said...

I used her and she used me, but neither one cared.

We were getting our share.

AJ Lynch said...

This story should scare the crap out of Hillary and her supporters.

It indicates even liberated American women will not vote for an unlikable candidate. I am starting to hope she gets the DEM nod because she is so beatable and I don't mean in that old "Ref beats his wife" way.

Synova said...

I think it's more the appearance of gaining status through marriage and *his* efforts rather than her own.

I've no doubt that she's the difference between his success and not. But the appearance is still there and, more importantly, the toleration, never mind her own statements and denigration of "Stand by your Man", of her husband's behavior concerning other women.

Stand by your Man, indeed.

But it's also true that Kerry took a lot of grief for marriage for power and wealth, deserved or not, so it's not necessarily a gender specific criticism. (I really wouldn't say that he married for money instead of for love but the fact that he did marry "up" did him no good politically.)

Roger said...

Correct me if I am wrong (as if that wouldnt happen on this blog), but isnt the notion of marrying for a love a fairly recent invention--like 20th century even? I suspect the track record of marriage across most cultures over most historical time is more about forging financial, political, and status relationships than it is about eternal love. That said, I will certainly give Bill and Hill credit for marrying for love--I simply can't believe they sized each other up at Yale, and plotted their life out to this degree. Love is simply the easier explanation.

Revenant said...

Jane Fonda ought to know. She used Tom Hayden, a left leader, to get a little recognition.

Um... look, I hate Jane Fonda too, but that's just crazy talk.

When she married Hayden, Jane Fonda was already an Oscar-winning actress -- and the daughter of one of the best-loved actors in America, and the sister of another then-successful actor. She most certainly did NOT need to marry a has-been political activist in order to "get a little recognition"!

Synova said...

Yes, Roger, the idea of marrying for love is a recent invention. Not that being fond of and admiring a potential spouse and finding them attractive wasn't always part of it.

I think the notion of choosing a spouse by "falling in love" to be nearly pathological, actually. Like hormones are the best way to make life altering decisions?

It's not that love is bad or anything but that, rather than defining love as a *verb*, we've decided that it's a noun, not something we do or a choice we make. So we're off the hook to "love" our spouse if we don't feel like it anymore. We fall into love and out of love and wreck families and make excuses to let our glands make our decisions for us and it's made an incredible mess.

Trooper York said...

The Great Tyrant: So, my pretty-pretty; we meet again.
Barbarella: You! The little one-eyed wench!Sometimes called the turd blossom.
The Great Tyrant: You have a good memory, Pretty-Pretty. Yes, sometimes I like to go out among my people, be like them, ordinary, 'evil' as you call it. So, I'm your little one-eyed wench. I'm also the Great Tyrant.
Barbarella: That's nice.
The Great Tyrant: It amuses me immensely! Now I believe you are interested in the wereabouts and welfare of a certain party, yes?
Barbarella: As a matter of fact I am. I'm here under the orders of the president of Earth, I'm looking for the one they call Hillary.
The Great Tyrant: I'M NOT TALKING OF HER, I'M SPEAKING OF THE ANGEL!
Barbarella: Osama.
The Great Tyrant: Yes, Osama. He has escaped the labyrinth. Crime! He has destroyed twelve of my cherished black wedge issuses. Crime! And he dares to deprive me of a pleasure unique in Sogo, an Earthling. Crime! Crime! You want your fine-feathered friend? Look, there he is.In the video with the white girl with the pillow.
Barbarella: I think Hillary must be behind this.
(Barabarella, 1968)

Paddy O. said...

"I am starting to hope she gets the DEM nod because she is so beatable"

Don't underestimate the ability of Republicans to nominate someone even more unpalatable.

I keep thinking of Gray Davis, the former governor of California. Highly, highly unpopular and the Republicans capitalized on it by putting Bill Simon on the ballot. Voters put Gray Davis back in office, then recalled him, wasting millions of dollars just to keep Bill Simon away from the governor's mansion.

Which is why I'm worried about Huckabee. He's the Bill Simon of this election. Tickles the ears of folks, but is really too deeply flawed to win.

Sgt. Mom said...

Harking back to the original point... I wonder if the unappeal of HRC to women is the blanket assumption that because she is a woman, therefore she ought to appeal to women voters on that account! Some kind of early-feminist group-thinky solidarity, where the alpha-females bark "Fall in you loyal feministic peasantry behind the anointed champion!" and the small-f feminists looking straight back and replying "We spent umpty-ump decades telling each other that we could think for ourselves to just fall in line one more time? That and the horse it rode in on, Baby!"
My daughter (mid-twenties, USMC and Iraq vet, college pre-veterinary) says that assumption is almost universal when the topic comes up for discussion on campus, and it pisses her off no end. She's tending towards Guiliani, herself...

PatCA said...

Hillary is a feminist heroine like Eva Peron is a feminist heroine.

Pal2Pal said...

I am a woman and the daughter of a woman who was breaking down the barriers of the glass ceiling long before any of the feminists ever took breath. Sheesh, she won a national award with a substantial financial award attached, from Forbes Magazine in the 1930s and Malcom Forbes, SR pronounced her the best and the brightest of her generation. But, she, before she died at age 94, 3 years ago, looked at Hillary as a very dangerous influence. Me, I can't stand her. She is a Socialist, pure and simple. A throwback to the socialism of the 1930s. And, she is as phony as they come. I don't think she road in on the back of her husband, I think she orchestrated the entire rise thru the ranks for both of them, taking a good hard look at the times she lived in and designed her plan using every tool at her disposal. Bill Clinton would have been nothing without her pulling his strings, keeping him in line, and stepping in when he was a bad boy. When I think of the two of them, I visualize Hillary in black leather and garter belt, standing spread eagle over the cowering Bill, who is whimpering, punish me Mommy, I'm so naughty.

Windbag said...

I want to spread the news
That if it feels this good getting used
Oh, you just keep on using me
Until you use me up
Until you use me up

Widespread Panic

rcocean said...

-I think this Jane Fonda attack is a HRC ploy to get conservatives to feel sorry for her and defend her.

-And let me defend Fonda, she didn't need a man to become a traitorous, stupid, left-wing, B**ch. She did that all on her own.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

When I think of the two of them, I visualize Hillary in black leather and garter belt, standing spread eagle over the cowering Bill, who is whimpering, punish me Mommy, I'm so naughty.

Pal, my very thoughts exactly. LOL.

I too am the daughter of a woman who was breaking down the barriers in the 40s. I was always very proud of my mother She didn't aim to be a feminist role model. There was no such thing as a feminist movement in those days. Just women who were motivated and got the job(s) done on their own.

This group think... you must vote for Hillary because she is a woman.... men are keeping women down....men are the enemy...women need to be strident and demanding.... and other such drivel is why I am so totally turned off by the current radical femininsts. I did my part in my early days, but now I think the movement has become a political tool for the Democrats and a shill for the Clintons.

SGT Ted said...

Join the Patriachy? I'm no help there. I can't even find my White Privilege.

Blake said...

Fonda's quote is tacky to say the least.

And yeah, Sheepman, I do think it sucks that W. road his father's coat-tails to the Presidency, and there are more similarities between W. and Hillary than that.

It's all about raising money; I hope Hillary loses just for that reason. Campaigning should be more than just who raises the most money.

Blake said...

(Er, "just" in the above should be taken to mean "simply" rather than "only"....)

JohnAnnArbor said...

I can't even find my White Privilege.

Yeah, me neither. I'm wondering if I left mine behind in a hotel room a few months back.

Cedarford said...

Sheepman - Do you really believe that HRC married Bill to further her professional career? He wasn't wealthy or well connected then and I believe she had the better prospects, career wise, after law school.

So did she before she failed the DC Bar exam, lost several plum jobs she had lined up as prospects and slummed down to Arkansas to take a teaching job Bill acquired for her at U of A Law as a "trailing significant other".

As far as better prospects, much of Hillary's Yale Law school accomplishment is not clear - she was an activist, very hard working, on Law Review, but not much has ever been released about her class standing or professor's opinions. She had powerful feminist mentors before she latched onto Bill's influence to advance her career. Her litigation history is almost non-existent, she was the "lawyer with clout" in Arkansas because of her Board appointments through Bubba and her "work" was mostly trading on influence in Arkansas until Bill was President.

Bill Clinton on the other hand was recognized as brilliant in high school, not merely "very smart". At Georgetown, he was mentored by Jesuits and acted as personal assistant to one of the most powerful Senators, William Fulbright, part-time.
At Yale, he was known as the guy who didn't have to study. Who missed 3 months of school to campaign for McGovern, studied a classmate's notes over a weekend, and still pulled top grades. He pocketed his Fulbright scholarship and took a Rhodes scholarship instead.
Each year at elite schools, full of the very smart to smart, you hear they get 2-3 truly gifted scholars that are the Faculty buzz. Clinton was one, John Roberts was one, Romney was one. Hillary Rodham, from accounts at the time, was not.

Not to put her down. She is smart and hard-working enough to be President, easily. Bill Clinton clearly had better prospects than her. He chose Arkansas over corporate law and being rich by 35. She chose Arkansas as Option B after failing the DC Bar exam.

***************
Althouse and her cite are hardly alone in a slowly-forming consensus of professional women and those under 55 that Hillary didn't pave her own way, and does not really represent them.

Interestingly, one of the pundits familiar with Hillary's polling identifies her core support groups and non-professional white women under 55 and women over the age of 55.
Which are also the core support audience groups for Obama campaigner Oprah Winfrey. Will Oprah pry them out and over to Obaam's camp? Oprah is very beloved and very persuasive with those ladies. We will see.

I personally think Hillary is a walking Potemkin Village. There isn't much there but a smart, ideologically-driven woman who did very little of her life accomplishments without the aid of powerful ideological groups or Bill Clinton.

Richard Fagin said...

Hanoi Jane? The one that cavorted with the North Vietnamese Army and posed for a picture on one of their antiaircraft guns? She's criticizing Hillary?

Funny, I have seen Hillary driving any truck bombs lately or posing with any Iranian SAM crews.

Simon said...

Cedarford said...
"[N]ot much has ever been released about her class standing or professor's opinions."

Robert Bork told a story at a FedSoc event recently that he used to say that he taught Bill and Hillary Clinton antitrust at Yale, but after events of recent years, now he just says they were in his class.

"She is smart and hard-working enough to be President, easily ... Hillary didn't pave her own way....

I'd think that the former is far more of a plus than the latter is a minus. The problem with her's what she believes, not how she got here.

Richard Fagin said...
"Funny, I have seen Hillary driving any truck bombs lately or posing with any Iranian SAM crews.

Pelosi got pretty damn close in her little trip to Syria.

Ernst Blofeld said...

"That's different to, say, Ulysses S. Grant in what way?"

Um, US Grant wasn't famous for being famous, a la Paris Hilton. He was responsible for organizing and leading an army of men under desperate circumstances and taking them to victory.

Hillary strikes me as a grind, and not especially brilliant or light on her feet or a great schmoozer. She exercises power via her org chart position (real or via the dotted line to her husband) not via charisma or her vast persuasive powers.

The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/man_finally_put_in_charge_of


WASHINGTON—After decades spent battling gender discrimination and inequality in the workplace, the feminist movement underwent a high-level shake-up last month, when 53-year-old management consultant Peter "Buck" McGowan took over as new chief of the worldwide initiative for women's rights.
...
McGowan claimed that one of the main reasons the movement enjoyed so little success in the past was that the previous management was often too timid and passive and should have been much more results-focused.

"You can't waste time pussyfooting around with protests and getting all emotional about a bunch of irrelevant details," McGowan said. "If you want to enjoy equal rights, you have to have a real man-to-man chat with the people in charge until you can hammer out some more equitable custody laws."

"And don't get me started on how disorganized and scatterbrained their old fundraising methods were," McGowan added. "Let's just say the movement never really had a head for numbers."

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

I think its sad when a respectable news organization like the "Onion" stoops to misogyny and making fun of feminists.

Women can add numbers. Women are NOT disorganized. Women are NOT emotional.

And women DO have a sense of humor. Especially, Feminists.

PatCA said...

"Join the Patriachy? I'm no help there. I can't even find my White Privilege."

The Patriarchy gets together for Happy Hour every Friday evening. You mean you weren't invited?!

reader_iam said...

Well, given the conversation and the contexts and the "underlyings", in the end all I can see worth venturing to contribute is this.

reader_iam said...

Hillary, Joe, and maybe even Mitt: Gennifer Flowers muses aloud as she ponders the field of candidates.

And you all wonder why I tend toward not just a long view, but also a skeptical and humorous one.

Why force irony, and its various cousins, when--hell!--they'll just come to you, if only you wait.

amba said...

Ventrilodentata.

theobromophile said...

Y'all haven't been invited to the patriarchy? Heck, I'm a woman and I've been a member for ages.

It's utterly inane to presume that women (and, presumably, other minorities, whether ethnic or religious) cannot disagree with the first candidate who comes along and fits into their particular category. What, all of a sudden, I'm supposed to stop voting Republican because Madame Rodham Clinton is running for President? Silly me, I thought that I could vote for people on their own merits and politics. Well, maybe that's why I'm a member of the patriarchy. ;)

Virtually Actual said...

"she not only pulled him out of the fire but helped orchestrate attacks against his accusers.

Exactly."

Are you retarded? You would feel better voting for Hillary if she joined forces with the radical right against her own husband? You think calling for Bill's impeachment alongside the Republican cocksuckers would make Hillary a feminist? What an incredibly stupid thing to think.

Blake said...

Aaaand Virtually reminds us that it's not about women's rights, it's partisanship that counts. The rules of sexual harassment only apply to the enemy.

She could've backed him 100% without lying and attacking. She could've also divorced him when he left office.

Sheepman said...

Cedarford: Thanks for the information and your prospective. I wasn't aware that she had failed the DC bar exam and lost out on some plum jobs because of that.

The narrative that I have formed about them is that she was the hard working, hard nosed, ambitious one and he the gifted, socially gregarious one. And the their mutual attraction was to complement each other strengths and weaknesses.

rhhardin said...

I think Fonda meant Hillary as the ventriloquist ; drawing on its former idea as a ``belly talker,'' which ties up with the sounds women make.

Hillary's belly talk though toes the patriarchal line, is the criticism, rather than the proper womanly mysteries.

AllenS said...

Jane Fonda meant that Hillary! can say Vagina Monologues without moving her lips.

Omaha1 said...

Besides being Bill Clinton's wife
What's Hillary done in her life
To earn our respect
We're right to suspect
Her defense of feminist strife

When values of women's rights clash
With power-lust and campaign cash
Mere feminist goals
Mean less than Bill's polls
His victims were just trailer trash.

Defending her unfaithful spouse,
She's less than a man, more a mouse
Why stand by that man
If not for her plan
To regain a Clinton White House.

Andy Johnson said...

Hillary is yesterday's woman. She is running as a feminist in a 1960's world. That will attract only those 1960's women who feel victims and seek revenge against something.

She fails to connect with younger women (under 60) who have seen women of ability rise in power, wealth and stature in the marketplace on their own merit. Hillary does not appeal to anyone (female or male) who appreciates individual merit.

He claim to -EXPERIENCE- begs the question of legacy.. Was the Clinton White House a Bill or Hillary- White House?

IF she was really running things, then doesn't her election violate the 22nd Amendment-?

Like all things -Clinton- she wants to have it both ways... And what she says is exactly what you think you wanted to hear...

Simon said...

Virtually Actual said...
"You think calling for Bill's impeachment alongside the Republican cocksuckers would make Hillary a feminist?"

I don't know where the log cabiners came down on impeachment - Titus, any thoughts? ;)

Joking aside, I think Rev or Fen, can't remember which, hit the relevant nail on the head not long ago in a reply to Lucy. Why would calling someone a cocksucker or exhorting someone to suck a dick (and myriad other variations on that theme) be an insult, unless one believes that doing so is somehow degrading, humiliating and so forth? And that being so, isn't there a sort of latent homophobia or misogyny underlying such claims? And that being so, isn't it quite ironic that it's a preferred insult of liberal leftospherians?

deepinjuncountry said...

I don't see what cock sucking has to do with bringing Bill Clinton down. Oh wait ...

Revenant said...

You think calling for Bill's impeachment alongside the Republican cocksuckers would make Hillary a feminist?

She should have called for him to resign, at the very least. But obviously you can't take a person's claim to feminism seriously if they side with a serial exploiter of women and help attack the women in question.

Kirby Olson said...

If you go through the Wikipedia article on Fonda, you find out some interesting facts. She participated in threesomes with her first husband Roger Vadim. She did have one recent dalliance with a hair dresser.

She became a Christian in 2001.

And she has apologized for holding an anti-aircraft weapon during her trip to North Vietnam:

"I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft gun, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless."

Taking a pot shot at Hillary and trying to bring her down is probably just part of her character.

I still hope that Hillary gets the nomination, so that other people can have a chance to shoot her down, too.

Virtually Actual said...

Simon, I meant "cocksucker" in the metaphorical sense of phallus worship, desire for power, etc. But you knew that. I have nothing against the act, which I engage in quite a bit.

Blake says: "She could've also divorced him when he left office." yeah, she could have, and she still could have won her senate seat, and still could have run for president. So who the fuck cares whether Hillary makes a stand for Althousian Feminism (in which women acquire agency and power by latching on to crotchety old conservative men) by getting divorced or not?

The Other Steve said...

I remember back in 1995 when Shannon Faulkner started classes at the Citadel. I was surprised by the vehement reaction many had to her daring to go to school there.

What surprised me more was that it mostly came from women.

I'm fairly confident in pointing out that your dislike of Hillary has little to do with Hillary herself, and more to do with your own internal psychology. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to look inward and understand yourself.

theobromophile said...

The Other Steve,

What, then, would you say to a pro-Sharon Faulkner, anti-Hillary woman? What no one on this thread has yet to explain is why a conservative or moderate woman should switch sides to vote for Hillary. That then becomes a demand that we vote not on merit, but on gender - which, IMHO, is just as b.s. when done to subjugate women as it is to put them in power.

Ralph said...

Robert Bork told a story
I heard him say that on TV a dozen years ago--I remember it as Con Law, not anti-trust, which gives it greater bite.

I don't know where the log cabiners came down on impeachment
I doubt they came down hard--nothing attractive in that story to them, except maybe Linda Tripp's son.

Fletch said...

Roger-

The dark secret of the patriarchy is the Berke Breathed actually depicted it: its the men's couch and populated by Steve Dallas, Opus, and the cockroach.

It's Bill, Opus, and the cockroach...

The Patriarchy!

The Other Steve said...

"What no one on this thread has yet to explain is why a conservative or moderate woman should switch sides to vote for Hillary."

I would suspect a conservative woman would not vote for Hillary because of her stand on issues, not because they hold a deep seated hatred of her.

As for a moderate woman. I don't understand. The Democrats are the moderates. So what is this side you are talking about?

Revenant said...

Simon, I meant "cocksucker" in the metaphorical sense of phallus worship, desire for power, etc. But you knew that.

Is there an award for Best Transparently Flimsy Justification? Because I think we've got a winner there.

Revenant said...

The Democrats are the moderates. So what is this side you are talking about?

What are the "moderate" positions you feel they hold? They're more mainstream on the war, no question there. On gay rights, abortion, and taxes the Republicans are more mainstream. What do you feel gives Democrats the edge they need to claim the "moderate" label?

The Other Steve said...

"What do you feel gives Democrats the edge they need to claim the "moderate" label?"

Because our other alternative is radicals. Whether they be on the right(Republican) or on the left(Green party, etc). Moderation by it's very definition means to sit between extremes.

Simon said...

The Other Steve said...
"Because our other alternative is radicals. Whether they be on the right(Republican) or on the left(Green party, etc). Moderation by it's very definition means to sit between extremes."

That's so obtuse as to be majestic. The Democrats must be the moderates because they aren't the Republican Party and they aren't the green party. Gee, how can one argue with that...

The Other Steve said...

simon says:
That's so obtuse as to be majestic. The Democrats must be the moderates because they aren't the Republican Party and they aren't the green party. Gee, how can one argue with that...

Go right for the ad hominem. That way you don't have to support your own opinion.

Simon said...

Steve, for one who wrote what you did, no amount of carefully-reasoned response is going to penetrate the buble, so it scarcely seems worth wasting the time.

The Other Steve said...

"Steve, for one who wrote what you did, no amount of carefully-reasoned response is going to penetrate the buble, so it scarcely seems worth wasting the time."

Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Fen said...

The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man — a powerful man who seems to have destroyed [s]diminished[/s] quite a number of women.

/fixed, and I really wish we had strikeout tags...

I think genuine feminists recognize that Hillary was never a feminist - like everything else, Hillary used it to advance her own self-interests.

Fen said...

Simon: Steve, for one who wrote what you did, no amount of carefully-reasoned response is going to penetrate the buble, so it scarcely seems worth wasting the time.

Steve: Brave Sir Robin ran away -

Not so fast. What Simon is saying is its pointless to argue with someone who doesn't have a common reference. For example, it would be a waste of time for me to explain Physics to you when you don't understand basic concepts of Math...

But pivot to me: back up your unsupported assertion that Democrats are "moderates"...

...when danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled

Or will you hoist yourself on your own petard?

Fen said...

a powerful man who seems to have destroyed [s]diminished[/s] quite a number of women

Missed that, thought it was referring to Hillary.

My intended point was: while enabling her husband's sexual predation in the workplace to advance her own political goals, Hillary destroyed any woman who came forward with allegations of sexual abuse. Pretty sure thats NOT feminism...

The Other Steve said...

But pivot to me: back up your unsupported assertion that Democrats are "moderates"...


Wouldn't this be a bit like arguing cartographic projections with someone who thinks the earth is flat?

Why don't you define moderate, since you believe it has something to do with supporting positions outside of the mainstream?

The Other Steve said...

My intended point was: while enabling her husband's sexual predation in the workplace to advance her own political goals, Hillary destroyed any woman who came forward with allegations of sexual abuse. Pretty sure thats NOT feminism...


Exactly who was destroyed?

Revenant said...

Because our other alternative is radicals. Whether they be on the right(Republican) or on the left(Green party, etc). Moderation by it's very definition means to sit between extremes.

Others have already sufficiently mocked you for saying that. I'll just limit myself to observing that Republicans represent the moderate middle ground between left-wing extremism (the Democrats) and right-wing extremism (the Reform Party of Pat Buchanan).

It is pretty obvious that Democrats are "the moderates" to you because you're a victim of the common error of defining the political center as wherever you personally happen to be located, with "left-wing" and "right-wing" defined solely in relation to yourself.

The Other Steve said...

I'll just limit myself to observing that Republicans represent the moderate middle ground between left-wing extremism (the Democrats) and right-wing extremism (the Reform Party of Pat Buchanan).

Oh noes! I've been mocked!

It is pretty obvious that Democrats are "the moderates" to you because you're a victim of the common error of defining the political center as wherever you personally happen to be located, with "left-wing" and "right-wing" defined solely in relation to yourself.

And that my friends is what you call classic projection.

M. Simon said...

Dr. Benway on talking assholes.

jhon said...

nice post love it
Womens Leather Coats

Womens Leather Skirts