Like seemingly everyone else at the Independent, I identify as a feminist. However, unlike everyone else at the Independent, I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. I would never — could never — vote for that technically female but otherwise entirely unfeminine she-beast.
Not in a million years.
Why is that? I’m sooo liberal right? Not really. I’m an unaffiliated centrist. I only seem liberal in Utah where free thought and free speech are crimes against the state.
In “The Big Lebowski,” the crippled millionaire Lebowski philosophically asks The Dude what makes a man. Doing the right thing, no matter what?
“Sure, that and a pair of testacles,” quoth The Dude.
Hillary Clinton might have a full set of tits, but she exhibits the feminine half of humanity about as effectively as would the Incredible Hulk in a power suit.
So when I hear people talk about Clinton being the first female Democratic nominee for president, I don’t get all giddy about some imaginary triumph for the feminist movement or starry-eyed about how progressive our embarrassingly regressive society is supposedly becoming.
Come on. We elected a black president, and we’re still murdering and incarcerating the shit out of black people at a rate that almost makes it seem like a national pastime.
No, I see Hillary Clinton’s continual rise to power as a great tragedy for the feminist cause.
First is the obvious, but painful truth that misguided “feminists” would like to overlook: Hillary would be nowhere without Bill. That might sound chauvinistic, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I would welcome a well-thought-out rebuttal citing evidence that presents a scenario whereby she would have risen in the ranks without having a former U.S. president for a husband, but I’ve never seen one, and I don’t expect to. For many men, like it or not, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill’s hawkish wife. And for others, a vote against Hillary is little more than a grudging vote against her inept competitor or a mindless party-line action.
Secondly, her success is due largely to the fact that people are afraid of Donald Trump. They are voting to “stop Trump,” not to elect the best candidate. Voting for Hillary Clinton has become a form of damage control, which hardly makes it a triumph of the feminist movement.
Thirdly, Bernie Sanders fights for the causes that a gender-unbiased feminist cares about, like fair pay, reproductive rights, and healthcare rights — just to name a few. How ironic that a woman would fail so miserably to stand up for these basic civil causes, only to be decisively outfemmed by a man.
But most importantly to me, the fact is that she may be biologically female, but that doesn’t make her feminine.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not talking about how ladylike she may or may not be; I’m talking about who she is, what she does, and how she does it. Tits are entirely beside the point.
In short, voting for Hillary Clinton by default simply because she’s a woman is a shortsighted, ill-thought-out choice that goes against the grain of feminist thought.
Masculinity and femininity go far beyond biological gender. They are elements that permeate all aspects of social behavior. The writings of Terence McKenna always come to mind in this discussion. McKenna was an ethnobotanist, a philosopher and a pioneer in psychedelics who coined the phrase “Culture is not your friend” in his landmark book, “Food of the Gods.” (More on how strongly that statement resonates in mentally arid Southern Utah later.)
McKenna talked about “dominator societies” versus ones that are based upon cooperation. Of course, he is coming from the deconstructivist standpoint of the post-psychedelic experience wherein one has cut through the delusions of ego-based thought. That might sound abstract, but frankly all of the “love thy neighbor” rhetoric that Yeshua of Nazareth was so fond of is most palpably embodied by the uninhibited neighbor-love of the psychedelic-loving hippies of yore. And psilocybin played no small part in that.
A dominator society, which in 2016 is what runs any first-world country, is paternal, hierarchical, retaliatory, materialistic, competitive, short-sighted — in short, it exhibits thoroughly masculine qualities. Think Great Britain circa 1776. (Or America now.) These societies are inherently incapable of caring about the external individual but rather place ultimate value on the self — as does the ego. They express and enforce masculine principles of might makes right at every turn. Even the hierarchical concept of a president is a masculine one, and the subversion of the democratic process by an electoral college is further evidence of a masculine dominator culture imposing its intolerance of cooperation upon the system it rules over. Oh no you don’t, little peons! The rich white men will decide who wins!
Cooperative societies, on the other hand, emphasize peace, teamwork, fairness, freedom, equality, gentleness, and a sustainable future, reflecting feminist values. Think pre-pioneer Utah. (Or heaven.) Ironically, these are all values emphasized by Yeshua of Nazareth and constitute the backbone of what I would call “authentic Christianity,” which was originally a wholly feminist (and thoroughly liberal) endeavor. This is opposed to the distorted appropriation of his teachings upon which the modern Christian religion and corollary cults (wink) — which encourage dominator-based behavior and values — are built. You know, the ones the misguided religious right are so very drunk on. Those.
McKenna’s argument is that psychedelics, particularly the psilocybin-containing mushrooms that grew on cattle dung, were key not only in the development of language but in helping people deconstruct the illusions manufactured by ego. This promoted less selfish and materialistic and more insightful, far-thinking societies whose values were more in line with what most religions profess but rarely practice … which to me suggests that we have kept the shells of wisdom but lost the kernel.
So how do Hillary Clinton and feminism factor into this?
Hillary Clinton is vying to be the most powerful man on Earth, tits aside.
She is arrogant beyond description, historically placing herself above the law again and again from the murder of Vince Foster to cozy relations with cocaine lords and from the Benghazi scandal to the email server debacle. In short, she places herself above everyone else and exempts herself from our laws in her own mind and through her financial and political influence.
She is unabashedly pro-corporation, pro-globalization, and pro-empire — and one simply can’t be those things and be equivocally pro-human.
Earning the nickname “The bride of Frankenfood,” she has helped facilitate tampering with our food system at a level that will irrevocably affect our entire species for an unforeseeable length of time, quite possibly in perpetuity. Threatening our kind in total for the sake of money and power lies on the farthest opposite reaches from feminism of the masculine/feminine spectrum as one could possibly go. That is some Dr. Evil shit right there.
Desperate for the female vote, she has postured as some champion of women’s rights, which is a preposterous stance given her track record. Look around the world. The subordination of women in other cultures has been supported by American imperial activities over the past half a century at least. Clinton has always pushed and will continue to push in that direction. She does not appear to see women and children in other countries; rather, she sees resources to be exploited and governments to be manipulated and subordinated. She is a career politician, and as such she prioritizes looking good over being good — as evidenced by her infamous flip-flopping. Waffles, anyone? Once a Clinton, always Clinton.
Here are the questions a feminist asks: “Will she care more about families than corporations?” “Will she stop the war machine and risk shaking the corporate empire?” “Will she bring peace or strife to humankind overall?” “Will she stand up for what is right, no matter the cost?”
What would have been evidence of progress as a society is if a Victoria Woodhull, Jill Stein, or Cynthia McKinney were to advance this far. Remember when Stein was ungraciously escorted out of the 2012 presidential debate at Hofstra University in 2012? That’s a woman who stands up for what’s right, no matter the cost, rather than using money, inherited power, blatant dishonesty, and every dirty trick in the book to elbow her way to the front of the line. When someone like her is given our full attention, we can talk about how enlightened we’ve become. Not before.
But if Hillary Clinton were elected president, it would only show that for a woman to be elected in this country in 2016 she must outmasculinize her competition. It would in no way be a triumph of the feminist movement but rather an ironic and sickening subversion of it by a female. Case in point, her supporters are more looking forward to her making Trump her bitch in debates than any peace or stability she might allegedly bring to America and the world.
A feminist who votes for Hillary Clinton is simply pulling the wool over his or her own eyes and voting against that which makes one a feminist.
Tits aside, of course.
RELATED ARTICLES
The two-party dynamic has created a broken system
‘Outrageous: The Victoria Woodhull Saga, Volume One: Rise to Riches’ illuminates historical feminism
The feminist and the fireside: Gender issues in Mormon dialogue
The uncomfortable relationship between sex and violence in America
‘The Forgotten Wives of Joseph Smith’: Dixie State University hosts art exhibit
Cartoon: ‘Feel the Sexism’
OPINION: Lies, damned lies, and the double standard of feminism
Let’s face it: vegan ladies are hot
I am blown away by this article. If there is anything more to add, it would be the ideas inherent in EXO-PSYCHOLOGY. James Joyce would be impressed at the depth of your analysis. Well written… I just can’t believe that this article came out of Washington County Utah. You have a talent. This should go viral and be shared with the rest of America. On that note – who do YOU vote for? You are now in Romulan territory and way past the neutral zone. We all saw MITTY (not Walter) on CNN last week. As we have a two party system – and a vote outside the spectrum clearly results in a null set. What do you do? My argument, albeit likely flawed, (especially in your eyes) is that Hillary is the true candidate of the .0000001%, based on research and overall media diatribe. While Trump is a wildcard and to some degree represents throwing a wrench into the cog of the great machine of OZ. Maybe it is time to celebrate the FEAST OF FOOLS, and see how the hunchback works out. One term can’t hurt. LOL. One must not forget sometimes the fool gets it right – as Parsifal stumbles along. Cordialement, L’idiot
Wow man, do you actually KNOW any women? I assure you, they know all about you.
Ok. Whatever you say. I’ll just assume that you didn’t have time to think of a better insult because you were in a hurry to get to a MENSA meeting.
The murder of Vince Foster? Oh, please.
The moment you start parroting failed right-wing agit-prop along with Jill Stein/Psilocybin 2016 endorsements is the moment I know recycling has gone just a step too far. Stop recycling baseless right-wing conspiracy theories into your rationale; they’re worse for your brain than a week-long frat party.
The moment you provide some kind of fact-based refutation of, well, anything is the moment I might take you seriously.
Voting for Hillary for the sole purpose of stopping Trump might not say much about Hillary, but right now I can think of no bigger failure for the feminist movement than Donald Trump becoming president.
He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, he talks about women’s & LGBT rights in foreign countries when he wants to tell the Clinton foundation to give the Saudis $$ back (because that makes sense) or to promote his ban on Muslims/ islamophobia, meanwhile his supporters here in the US literally had #repealthe19th amendment trending on Twitter, he has a pretty comprehensive history of calling various women fat and/or ugly, he has had at least 10 women come forward claiming that he sexually assaulted them, and he is currently awaiting trial for allegations that he repeatedly raped a 13 yr old girl at a convicted pedophiles house.
Hillary may be “technically” female and arguably not feminine but Trump is literally male and arguably not human. He seems to be 100% ego. Using his charity’s money to finance a 6 foot painting of himself?? Tell me more about deconstructing the illusions manufactured by ego and how voting for Hillary Clinton is going against the grain of feminist thought.