Reply to comment

Nice try. Too bad we

Nice try. Too bad we "credulous feminists" realize that your socialist propaganda is a load of hooey. American feminist rhetoric is for wealthy white women? Clinton only gave lip service to women's rights while Secretary of State? Women in office don't matter? Can we have some evidence for these inflammatory claims? This article actually shows how much we need to elect Hilary. If the only "women's issues" you can come up with are reproductive rights and sexual violence, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fact that we speak in a "narrower set of issues more commonly associated with women's rights" IS the problem. As Hilary said in her world changing 1995 speech to the U.N. gathering on women in Beijing, China, "Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights," a speech that is ranked in the top 100 of political speeches of all time and started a global revolution for women that still resonates two decades later--and a speech you did not even MENTION in this uninformed, biased article.

Newsflash: whether the economy is up or down, whether we are at war or not, whether gay males have rights or not...women of all sexual orientations and children suffer. Because "It's the Masculinity, stupid." Please read scholar Jackson Katz' excellent book "Leading Men: Presidential Campaigns and the Politics of Manhood" to learn how and why for centuries, political decision have been deadlocked by the need to conform to archaic, face saving masculine norms, whether it's men on the left or men on the right.

A female president means an entire generation of Americans will grow up learning that women lead. That more than anything will dismantle the lock that toxic masculinity has on all our institutions...corporate, religious, athletic, academic and on and on. Your analysis just shows your own ignorance of the history of politics and gender. In other words, you think women voting for Hilary are naive for not realizing that helping women is about the economy and the military. I say you are naive for thinking that's how deep the analysis goes. It goes much deeper than that. Quite simply, it goes to American Manhood. Because history is full of revolutionary "men" that spewed pro-woman rhetoric and then put "narrow women's issues" on the back burner while fixing the "economy" and "military" for the benefit of MEN.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <b> </b> <br> <br /> <a> </a> <em> </em> <strong> </strong> <cite> </cite> <code> </code> <ul> </ul> <ol> </ol> <li> </li> <dl> </dl> <dt> </dt> <dd> </dd> <div> </div> <img> <style> <font> </font> <blockquote> </blockquote> <hr>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.