Why are we so hard on Hillary? Damned if I can understand it...
I was invited by our niyad to make an OP of this essay, which I posted in GD: 2016 yesterday (Thursday), prompted by this Ms. magazine blog:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/09/07/why-are-we-so-hard-on-hillary/
I've stated elsewhere that, being a fan of Hillary Clinton's since I first started learning about her during Campaign 1992, she had me at "well I guess I could have just stayed home and baked cookies." I heard that and it was utterly electrifying! I knew right then: THAT gal's for ME! Hell, she freakin' IS me!
Hillary's ultimate and unforgivable crime is that she is an uppity woman. She had, and still has, the nerve to be an uppity woman. From way back when not many women were that assertive in the public arena. The main role for a woman in politics was to be the WIFE of someone in politics. It was seriously unusual and quite improbable that you were a player, yourself. She does not "know her proper place." Actually, she does. And it ain't staying home and being meek and mute, and baking cookies!
Hey, for some women, that's enough. For some women, that's what they aspire toward, and what they hope to be. That's THE goal. And that's FINE! To quote Seinfeld: "not that there's anything wrong with that." No one condemns that. But should that be the unchangeable blanket absolute for all women? Should that be our only available option, as women? Some women feel driven or compelled or inspired to do MORE. And do it in the public arena, on the front lines, center stage, fully exposed and in the spotlight she doesn't merely share with her husband because it's actually HIS spotlight. Some women want to stick their necks out and try to affect positive change for the greater good. Not all of 'em, but some of 'em definitely do. And why should they be held back?
Why, indeed, should they be held back, if they're capable of contributing more, and willing to take the risk, and willing to put themselves up for public scrutiny and take some real responsibility and become active participants? Become players? That's what's always bothered me about the Catholic Church. Women are held back, simply because of their gender. And in an era where one of the biggest problems in the public service of the Church, and there's still such a shortage of priests, WHY more than 50% of the available talent pool is locked out - simply BECAUSE they're not men? I've known women of faith who are ten times the leaders (and faith-leaders) of the men to whom they're subservient.
When Donald Trump says Hillary doesn't look Presidential because she doesn't have a Presidential look, we all know what he's really saying. It's because she doesn't have a dick. But then again he "trumps" her there because he not only HAS a dick, but he IS one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2404989
= new reply since forum marked as read
