Friday, February 08, 2008
The Democrat Feminists Are at it Again
Hillary Versus the Patriarchy, by Erica Jong, is another diatribe by a leftist feminist. After attacking "alpha male" Bill Kristol for his comments about white women, she reverts to the feminist rhetoric of the 1960's to explain her support for Mrs. Clinton as president. Though Ms. Jong is a successful writer, she comes across as a bitter female. This paragraph is key:
Here is Ms. Jong's statement about Mrs. Clinton's run for the US Senate - in New York where Mrs. Clinton had never lived. Hmmm:
Ms. Jong goes on to explain how Mrs. Clinton adapted, loosened up without drugs or booze, tolerated the behavior of her husband, raised her daughter, keeping Chelsea out of the spotlight (which presidents attempt to do with their kids), stood by her man through everything. Ms. Jong uses the word "smart" a lot - she, along with Mrs. Clinton were "bluestocking, straight-A Phi Beta Kappa," students from all-girls' colleges. The final dig is Ms. Jong's cheap shots at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. So which political party is the divisive political party?
Ms. Jong and her buddies ignore the gross abuse of women in the Arab world, many parts of Africa, Asia, and even the "honor" killings in the West. All of them refuse to address the arranged marriages of so many women on the planet. They omit the fact that many cultures still prevent women from attending school or participating in athletics.
The only females who mean anything to the Erica Jongs of the world are those who are Democrats or socialists. Otherwise, they brush off women who don't fit their mold. They dismiss women with different political views. They deny that Republicans have done as much or more for women. They want to be taken seriously, then tell us to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she put up with a wayfaring husband and "worked twice as hard" - at what? She doesn't even say Mrs. Clinton did it with class.
The article is worth the read, but don't expect Phi Beta Kappa caliber writing. It's a whining treatise, with factual errors, particularly regarding Iraq. Ms. Jong's conclusion is that people should vote for Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman, not that she's accomplished much outside of a law partnership because her husband was a governor. Pretty weak in my book.
She's (Mrs. Clinton) always worked twice as hard to get half as far as the men around her. She endured a demanding Republican father she could seldom please and a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber.A few observations: Did Mrs. Clinton have to go through all the years of routine work to EARN her partnership, or did she get a boost from her husband, the Governor? If Mrs. Clinton's father had been a Democrat, would Ms. Jong have made the same comment? She's upset because Hillary was pushed to excel? Is Mrs. Clinton's husband really brilliant if he "played around with bimbos?" And were the other women Bill played around with "dumb and dumber"? Katherine Willey had plenty of smarts and the last I read, Monica Lewinsky just graduated from the London School of Economics. Dumb? I don't think so.
Here is Ms. Jong's statement about Mrs. Clinton's run for the US Senate - in New York where Mrs. Clinton had never lived. Hmmm:
When she decided to run for the Senate she was called a carpetbagger.Definition of a carpetbagger, American Heritage Dictionary: "An outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality." (Seems to fit.)
Ms. Jong goes on to explain how Mrs. Clinton adapted, loosened up without drugs or booze, tolerated the behavior of her husband, raised her daughter, keeping Chelsea out of the spotlight (which presidents attempt to do with their kids), stood by her man through everything. Ms. Jong uses the word "smart" a lot - she, along with Mrs. Clinton were "bluestocking, straight-A Phi Beta Kappa," students from all-girls' colleges. The final dig is Ms. Jong's cheap shots at Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. So which political party is the divisive political party?
Ms. Jong and her buddies ignore the gross abuse of women in the Arab world, many parts of Africa, Asia, and even the "honor" killings in the West. All of them refuse to address the arranged marriages of so many women on the planet. They omit the fact that many cultures still prevent women from attending school or participating in athletics.
The only females who mean anything to the Erica Jongs of the world are those who are Democrats or socialists. Otherwise, they brush off women who don't fit their mold. They dismiss women with different political views. They deny that Republicans have done as much or more for women. They want to be taken seriously, then tell us to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she put up with a wayfaring husband and "worked twice as hard" - at what? She doesn't even say Mrs. Clinton did it with class.
The article is worth the read, but don't expect Phi Beta Kappa caliber writing. It's a whining treatise, with factual errors, particularly regarding Iraq. Ms. Jong's conclusion is that people should vote for Mrs. Clinton because she's a woman, not that she's accomplished much outside of a law partnership because her husband was a governor. Pretty weak in my book.
