Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of liberalism, not feminism

Hillary Clinton

“I can’t believe we just put the biggest crack in that glass ceiling yet,” Hillary Clinton said in a video address to the DNC, the day she was officially crowned their Democratic presidential nominee. She couldn’t have picked a comment more exemplary of liberal “feminism,” perfectly positioning herself as its beneficiary in that moment.

We would be deceived (as the men who rule every sector of our patriarchal state, as well as those who benefit from it, want us to be) if we believed that Clinton’s personal and professional victory, her wealth and her seizure of government power, will trickle down to all other females in this country. What we’re witnessing is not an advancement towards female liberation, but the kind of individualized success made possible only through cooperation with the capitalistic patriarchal state that liberal faux-feminists base their hollow “equality” politics on — a slick distraction from the sex-based oppression of females that remains unaffected no matter how many women break their own glass ceilings.

To believe that a woman like Clinton can rise through the ranks of the male supremacist state, buoying her political career with millions of dollars in donations from corporations, big banks, and foreign governments controlled by men, on a platform that poses a serious and legitimate threat to male supremacy and misogyny is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus. One does not spend decades in the rotten heart of an oppressive system and personally benefit within it by holding any genuine desire to see that system destroyed. Whether in wishful thinking or mere defensiveness, some feminist-identified liberals may argue that Clinton’s collusion with patriarchal male supremacy in government has been a necessary charade, put on for the sake of arriving at the presidential office where she can finally reveal her true “feminist” agenda with nothing to lose and the power to attack the system. But not even she is that good at lying.

In 1995, as First Lady, Clinton delivered her famous remarks to China and the United Nations, saying “Women’s rights are human rights.” Years later, before, during, and after her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton received millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from brutally misogynistic countries: Algeria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, and the United Arab Emirates. For feminist-identified Clinton supporters, ignoring or excusing this speaks less to hypocrisy or denial and more to the cultural relativism that permeates the liberal demographic, which always excuses misogyny overseas based on the bizarre logic that criticizing the black, brown, and Muslim cultures of the world for anything is racist, colonialist, and Islamophobic.

Dirty donations aside, Clinton was a key orchestrator of American military occupations in the Middle East that ultimately contributed to the region’s instability, obviously without caring that military-involved conflict always leads to female suffering and death within war zones. She spearheaded U.S. interference in Libya’s civil war, and now, since the death of Gadhafi, polygamy has been legalized in the country again. Women were killed in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip in Israeli attacks that Clinton excused. Iraqi women have suffered more sexual violence and political oppression as a result of the Islamic fundamentalist regimes that replaced Hussein’s secular government after the U.S. invasion Senator Clinton voted for and now face horror under ISIS. Four years as Secretary of State wasn’t enough time for Clinton to make a statement on behalf of Iraqi women. Instead, she supported the 2009 coup in Honduras, which resulted in greater violence against Honduran women, and the Moroccan government’s record on women’s and human rights, despite the fact that until 2014 Morocco legally absolved male rapists who married their victims. (Note that Morocco has also donated to the Clinton Foundation.) You could argue that Clinton has improved women’s lives in America, but even if that were true, feminism that seeks liberation and well-being only for women in one’s own country is too selfish and ultimately fragile to warrant praise.

On November 15, 2007, in a Democratic primary debate hosted in Nevada, Clinton was asked if national security is more important than human rights. She answered:

I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn’t mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests. And there’s absolutely a connection between a democratic regime [in Pakistan] and heightened security for the United States.”

Her record as secretary of state would later bear this answer out. If Clinton still believes that “Women’s rights are human rights,” it appears that the caveat is: men decide what women’s rights are, women’s rights are important only when it conveniences the U.S. government, and human rights only matter as long as said humans are the rights ones, in the right place, at the right time.

No wonder so many liberals support her.

Short of voting for the continued legality of abortion on the federal level and supporting pay equity (which has yet to be achieved), Clinton and her liberal supporters have nothing to offer women as a class in America or the world. They provide no analytical criticism of the patriarchy or concrete plans to erode it. They never utter the phrase “male violence,” choosing instead to focus on gun control, which conveniently allows them to pin the blame on conservatives and the NRA every time there’s another mass shooting, while ignoring male violence that doesn’t involve firearms. Clinton supports legislation that prevents domestic violence perpetrators from buying a gun, an important and necessary measure that would protect women, but hasn’t said a single word in 20-odd years about the global and national pattern of male violence, even as she made political choices that inflamed it overseas. She’s never held men’s feet to the fire, not for murder or rape or pedophilia or any other kind of widespread violence against women and girls. She and her liberal voter base, along with virtually everybody else on the left, would rather argue with the right about gun control vs. mental illness and Islamic terrorism, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, 2681 American women were murdered in 2014, according to the FBI, and looking at their numbers going back to 2010, that’s an average annual total.

Because we know males commit up to 90 per cent of all homicides, despite being less than half of the national population, we can infer that most women murdered in America are killed by a male. The annual rate of male-on-female homicide in America is higher than the annual casualty rate of active-duty military in Iraq and Afghanistan going back to 2002, yet Hillary Clinton and feminist-identified liberals want to talk about equal pay. They protest conservative attacks on abortion rights, but don’t hold your breath for them to get behind a political agenda that regulates the porn industry and adopts the Nordic Model. That might upset the men on the left. And Clinton and her liberal supporters are only allowed to upset the men on the right.

Is she worse for women than the men that came before her? No. Is Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama more “feminist” than Clinton? Of course not. As far as I’m concerned, men can’t be feminists, only allies (and I have yet to encounter one who even deserves the “ally” title). Should we hold Clinton to a higher standard when it comes to labouring for female liberation than we hold male politicians? No. And that’s the point: Hillary might as well be a man for all the good she’s going to do women in America and around the world.

Feminist-identified liberals in her camp who want to declare a Clinton presidency a “feminist victory,” simply because she’s female and votes the same way on abortion as every other Democratic politician, have predictably fallen into the trap of believing that a woman wielding government power within our patriarchal society is a signal that male supremacy is under siege. In reality, the only thing “representative politics” achieves in the long run is making some people feel better, while allowing the oppressor classes to point at said representation in their government and say, “See? We let a woman be president. Aren’t we gracious and fair, after all?”

When it comes to female liberation, Hillary Clinton fails as a politician the same way all liberal politicians do. If your goal is to make some women more comfortable within the misogynistic, male supremacist society we live in, Clinton probably won’t disappoint, given four to eight years in the White House. If you want to see the long overdue next phase of the feminist revolution, she and her allies in the federal government will leave you in the same purgatory that Barack Obama did — a purgatory decorated with “equality” buttons and “choice” banners and big screen TVs with 500 channels of drug store makeup commercials, porn full of 18 year old girls deep-throating middle-aged men to avoid poverty, and 21 flavors of femicide. But enough people are comfortable in that purgatory that if Clinton wins the presidency, they’ll be more than happy to declare the first woman president a historical and symbolic victory for American women, who will then know that they can truly do anything in theory, even as their lives stay exactly the same as they were with a male commander-in-chief.

Marie Crosswell is a novelist, short story writer, and poet. She lives in the Southwestern United States.

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Marie Hume

    Thank you for this important article.

  • If a woman being elected President in this country in no way is a threat to the system–and hey, I can allow for that, I mean, Ireland has elected a female President and look how they’re doing–then why is the other side so convinced it WOULD be a threat? Because most of the arguments aimed at her are utterly ridiculous, yet apparently designed to discredit her. People don’t make up shit and full-on lie about you unless they feel threatened by you. Whatever she actually has done, she’s been accused of a hell of a lot more and a hell of a lot worse that she never actually did.

    And while we’re on the subject, you’re blaming her for the policies of Barack Obama. Do you have any idea how old that tactic is? We could have suffered Ronald Reagan’s sojourn in the Oval Office for just one term rather than two if the media and the public hadn’t tanked Mondale’s candidacy by blaming Geraldine Ferraro for the actions of her husband. Similarly now, everything Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have done in office are somehow Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. Really? No. There’s no way Clinton could have done anything on her own as Secretary of State–she HAD to enact Obama’s policies, or he would have fired her.

    But hey, blame who you want to blame.

    And, pro tip? The only way we can truly liberate women of other countries is by bombing the hell out of them. We can’t legislate for them. We can’t govern them. We would have to go in and shoot and bomb. How liberating. Did it never occur to you that maybe being patronizing and nanny-stating other countries is also exactly what a liberal would do? Haven’t we done enough of that already? The most we can do from here is enact economic sanctions. That too would hurt them. So I don’t know what you think Hillary Clinton is supposed to be able to do that wouldn’t violate your personal morals in some way.

    But hey, at least people can’t say Feminist Current only runs pro-Hillary articles now. So there’s that.

    • Matt Markonis

      What they’re referring to in the comparison of Clinton with her husband and Obama is not, I hope, her responsibility by proximity, but that her own philosophy doesn’t conflict with their neoliberal policies, which is a bit theoretical but has validity, since we have to assume some level of continuity between her colleagues, etc. Secretary of State is a big deal, and usually the person holding the office is indeed something of an ideologue, the Presidency has not been linked to it directly by virtue of the same man or woman holding both offices since the 1830s, and in fact she is only the 3rd woman to serve as Secretary of State, somewhat reinforcing the theme of human rights maybe at home, but after we achieve National Security abroad. Although it’s unfair to characterize her statements in some part on the exact trade-off as being “I agree with that completely” since the slant at least she seemed to get from the question was regarding nation-building, not just human rights vs. national security. But while her proximity record may not be a perfect indication, as she did at least oppose 2 of Bush’s tax cuts in her first term as senator, she did something probably far more notable, which was to come together with Newt Gingrich in 2005, in the middle of our years of crisis, and support “incremental universal health care” which even if she isn’t a feminist is an issue worth pushing for, since she’s on record as saying it just costs too much: well by my numbers right now using some of the fastest computers in the world doing a daily genomic work-up on the entire world population is about a $250bn/year industry, which means it’s worth far more in the long run: yet NIH earmarked just $190mn in 2008 for the next 5 years of research, which has now lapsed, on epigenetics, which is really going to settle to debate over nature versus nurture responsibility of personal and government decision-making in our lives, etc. Another $110mn was earmarked by NSF, NIH and DARPA as part of the human connectome BRAIN initiative, and NIH has added an additional $85mn in 2015. What’s crucial for maybe feminist especially to realize who often concentrate on the journalistic samples available to us, exemplars of societal abuses against feminism etc. is that in the next generation or two humans are going to start being asked fundamental questions about what kind of humans they want to produce (the way I like to think of this is that according to one figure about 6.5% of men are rapists, but in a study in I think Texas men were asked if they had sympathy with the motives of a rapist, in essence, if rape were legalized would they sympathize or commit rape, and up to 1/3 said yes): well, science and technology should probably not stop at the doors of behavior, and having even a cynical, establishment women in charge of this period of development is probably not terrible if women remember to hold her accountable for these kinds of very problematic and important FAQs on the horizon that currently escape our IT industry of social media. There are deficiencies in men’s behavior that surely can be regulated through education and social justice, but there will also be this question of entitlement to the shitty basic material that’s created this situation, and the sooner I think women kind of get with the idea that feminism has a technological angle, that it’s going to get more advanced, Clinton won’t seem like the worst idea. Admittedly, this is apologism, but it has the same potential Chomsky said Obama did to “push” if women commit to the notion of exploring these ideas at more than say $385mn over 5-10 years: at just a fraction of what healthcare currently costs, within the next decade the TOP500 computers in the world will likely be fast enough to compute the whole world’s epigenetic variance on a daily basis: it would be like having a Planned Parenthood on serious steroids, that extended to all sorts of different facets of lifestyle maintenance, and that would of course carry no guarantees, but signing onto this at the level of university systems would prevent the private market from gaining a stranglehold that will very likely create antitrust issues if it remains unaddressed. In other words pushing forward on this is not woo I don’t think, and can bypass a lot of rhetoric as the systems get better and the evidence not only continues to be there, but improves drastically that there are real problems in our ability to successfully respond to our environment. Think of the difference in a shitty rape trauma case where now the victim is put on trial, if say in the future she could not only show its effects on her convincingly and without horrendous drama, but actually put the deeper motivations of the allegedly miraculously reformed perpetrator on trial. It would help spur a legal system that is more justifiably interventionist, and less stupidly and blindly punitive, in fact it would just have a whole lot of repercussions, and they should be informed definitely by these sorts of concerns first. Of course there is a lot of 1st world privilege involved here too, which feminists have been on the forefront of as well, so in general I see a lot of ground to be gained if things move more rapidly, not to sound wantonly idealistic, but at least to be informed is a level of measurement of trauma and injustice that is relatively unknown. Healthcare may be approaching $6tn by 2030-2035, it would be nice if at least a large part of it were going into epigenetics and the study of what we are doing to ourselves, to end all this theoretical debate about who is and who isn’t solely and without forgiveness responsible for what that’s blinded us to solutions for ages despite some great intentions. And it is kind of sick to try too hard, there are lots of soon-to-be bygone bastards that went senile over the last 10-15 years that even time and mother nature can improve on with what we’ve got. But as long as the logic and motives of feminism remain the same and approach these huge questions methodically they will be a big success, and that could be poised or advanced greatly under Clinton. She’s already committed to trying to reject “Citizens United” within 30 days, so maybe she wouldn’t mind a generation of young women committed to thinking big: it must be hard to see the forest for the trees in somebody’s position like that, and after the private email server fiasco it would be kind of like a fatuous joke, like here you go, we’ve got a really good techno scandal for you.

      • Tinfoil the Hat

        Too long, boring, and Bernie-broish of a mansplanation. But I’m sure you have our best interests at heart, right, dude?

        • Matt Markonis

          Sorry, nevermind.

    • Slātlantican

      If a woman being elected President in this country in no way is a threat to the system–and hey, I can allow for that, I mean, Ireland has elected a female President and look how they’re doing–then why is the other side so convinced it WOULD be a threat?

      Dana, I have a great deal of respect for your opinions. But it is possible for people to be vehemently opposed to HRC without thinking of her as a “threat”. I oppose her for the same reason I would oppose the candidacy of a resurrected Richard Nixon. In my opinion, she is the most fundamentally dishonest nominee for President since the 37th President, and I simply grow disheartened that we are about to elect someone who has so clearly lied, not for national security reasons, as Bush and Obama have done, but for her own personal welfare. I don’t blame her for the deaths at Benghazi–that sort of thing can and will happen under anyone’s watch (and she wasn’t even the President)–but I do blame her for publicly blaming it on a video when privately she acknowledged that that was not the cause. I don’t even blame her for emailing classified emails in an insecure manner–we have, after all learned that this is apparently common among many State Dept. officials. But I do blame her for setting up her own server and then lying that it was set up so that she could keep all her emails on one device, when it is clear (to me) that she did it so that she could delete any emails that she wanted to keep out of the public eye, including FOIA requests. The only significant difference that I can see between RMN and HRC is that the latter learned from the former that you should burn the tapes as soon as their existence becomes known.

      I do acknowledge that I speak for no one but myself. I am quite sure that there are sexists who oppose HRC because she is a woman, just as there are racists who opposed (and continue to oppose Obama) because of his skin. But I think it is a mistake to think that misogynists comprise the bulk of Hillary’s opposition. Many oppose her for the same reason they will oppose any Democrat, and many others, like me, oppose her on ethical grounds.

      Of course, none of this changes that fact that her opponent is hopelessly unqualified, both from experience and temperament, to be President, and that she is the less dangerous choice in November. But in my view, she will pollute the Oval Office the first time that she walks into it as President. Not because she is a woman–I could happily support many women for President, including Diane Feinstein, Debbie Stabenow, Nikki Haley, even someone like Kathleen Sebelius, whom I oppose on about every issue imaginable, would not bother me if she was elected. It’s not about the threat of Hillary; it’s about wanting the occupant of the office to be a person of good moral character. I think these women I mentioned meet that standard; IMO, HRC does not.

    • Maíra Maximiano

      The other side is Trump, what do you expect? Sense of reality? C’mon!

  • Alienigena

    Very well made points. The writer is able to connect the dots between Hillary Clinton’s liberalism, her involvement in overseas campaigns (and their impact on women), her benefactors, and her lack of real commitment to feminism, except when she can use it to promote her own brand.

  • jdndcus

    Hillary Clinton will be far and away the most feminist president in United States history. But sure, let’s shit all over her for not being a radical feminist or socialist in a country where that would guarantee her to never win the presidency.

    • Wren

      Doesn’t it remind you of “Obama isn’t black enough”???

  • I don’t think we have any way of knowing what kind of feminist Hillary Clinton is. What we do know is that she chose to be a politician, to work within the American political system. She did not choose to be an outside protester. Women need both types of feminist fighters, those working from within the political system and those working from without. From within the system Clinton has demonstrated concern for women’s rights and needs for as long as she’s been in the public realm. I suspect she’ll be responsible for major legislation that helps and protects women — if she has enough support. I question the motives of someone who writes this kind of article in the current circumstances.

    • Wren


  • Meghan Murphy

    I don’t think FC has ‘jumped on the bandwagon’ of anything. We are publishing various perspectives on Clinton because our contributors/readers/sisters are not all in full agreement. I think there has to be room here for celebration as well as for critique. We have been a space where it has been ok to support Clinton and I think we also need to be a space where critique is ok too…

    I very much respect your opinion and position, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’ t hear from women who disagree.

    • Wren

      You have published different perspectives, and I appreciate that. But I would love to read a measured, non-hysterical, factually accurate, and well-written article that argues against voting for Clinton. This piece, unfortunately, isn’t it.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I am amused that FC has been accused, incessantly, over the past couple of months, of being ‘pro-Clinton’ and of ‘Clinton-apologism’ (simply because we didn’t express outright hate towards her) and now, suddenly, because we’ve offered space to various feminist perspectives on Clinton, we’re positioned on the opposite end of the spectrum.

  • Heartsees

    This article is shot through with misinformation, misleading information, propaganda and factual errors and is essentially a smear piece which repeats conservative/Republican talking points. The internet is rife with such unproductive and useless pieces. I would expect far more from an article that appears in Feminist Current. I will address some of the errors which stand out to me on first glance. In referencing Clinton’s “spearheading” of intervention in Libya, the author makes no mention of Hillary Clinton’s deep concern at the time over Libyan women’s reports — corroborated by a woman doctor who worked with Physicians for Human Rights whose name I do not recall right now and later by Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian organizations — of mass rapes by Libyan soldiers on Gadhafi’s orders as well as reports that Gadhafi himself was guilty of rape and that he had supplied soldiers with Viagra. Leaving aside the issue of whether you (rhetorical “you”) believe that it is ever right for the U.S. to intervene militarily in the affairs of a foreign nation — I mean, was it right for the U.S. to intervene in Hitler’s Germany? Most believe it was — mass rapes ordered by top government officials and heads of state do, in fact, constitute a penultimately feminist basis for such interventions, one that is uncommon to unheard of among men involved in such decision-making. I don’t at all see the relevance of highlighting the fact that polygamy is now legal in Libya again. Is that supposed to be somehow worse than the head of Libya ordering mass rapes of Libyan women associated with opposition to his regime? The often-repeated attacks on Clinton related to Honduras are flat untrue. There was not, in fact, a coup in Honduras in 2009 for Hillary Clinton or anyone else to “back,” certainly not by the traditional meaning. The entirety of the Honduran Congress voted unanimously to oust then-President Zelaya. He was then flown out of the country via a Honduran military aircraft. Initially Clinton as Secretary of State and President Obama opposed his ouster. But ultimately there was nothing they could have done about it, unless somebody thinks that somehow the U.S. President and Secretary of State should have the power, authority or wherewithall somehow to overrule the unanimous decision of the ruling body of a foreign government. Zelaya later sought to run for re-election once again and was again forbidden to do so by the Honduran Congress. It is certainly true that violence against women, indigenous women in particular, has increased since 2009 and I am absolutely certain if it were within Clinton’s power, she would address that violence. It is not, just like it was not within her power to overturn the unanimous decision of the Congress of the nation of Honduras. The Supreme Court of Honduras has only now ruled that Zelaya may run for re-election. We can’t have it both ways, at once oppose interventions in the affairs of foreign nations (Libya) and also hold our elected leaders, Clinton included, responsible for what happens in foreign nations when they do not and cannot intervene (Honduras).

    Moving on to Clinton Foundation donors. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of donors to the Clinton Foundation, possibly thousands, and they are listed online and easily available for anyone to find. Only two of the donors listed in this piece appear on this list. I took the time to check, and Algeria, Oman, Democratic Republic of Congo and India are not listed as donors to the Clinton Foundation. Among those which are currently listed are the following: The Kingdom of Norway (contributed in the same bracket/category as Saudi Arabia and contributed more than the United Arab Emirates, the only other country the author listed which actually was a contributor), Australia, the Elton John AIDS Foundation, the Netherlands, MAC AIDS fund, Newman’s Own Foundation, the American Association of University Women, Child Relief International, Italian Ministry For The Environment, Land, & Sea, The Global Fund To Fight Aids, Tuberculosis And Malaria, The Nature Conservancy, The Norwegian Climate Foundation, United Way, The Wildlife Conservation Society, AFL-CIO , American Refugee Committee, Coexist Foundation, Norah Jones, Quincy Jones, International Peacebuilding Alliance (Interpeace), The Elders (founded by Nelson Mandela, currently includes Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu among 10 or so members), The Humane Society Of The United States, The Hunger Project, Animal Planet, Breast Health And Healing Foundation, Educate Girls, National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, Save the Children UK, UNICEF, United Food & Commercial Workers, Irish Aid. And having listed the aforementioned, anyone can contribute to the Clinton Foundation, which distributes funds according to its stated purposes. Contributions do not obligate Hillary Clinton or anyone else to perform personal or governmental favors for any donor. If it did — it doesn’t, again — Clinton would be evently obligated between Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Norway.

    And having said all this, why would there be an issue with India or the Democratic Republic of the Congo donating to the Clinton Foundation? How bizarre to categorize all of the listed nations as whole cloth “brutally misogynistic,” then go on to make references to “cultural relativism” in what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against any suggestion that some of these countries — which the author correctly describes as “black, brown and Muslim” — might actually be engaged in pro-woman, endeavors of many kinds, might have women leaders and servants in all sorts of capacities and positions dedicated to girls and women. Does the author seriously dispute this? Does she actually believe that the entirety of each of these nations, every leader, every program, is “brutally misogynistic”? What on earth. I suggest a quick perusal of Google. In the search field enter “India” and “pro-woman programs;” and the same with “Democratic Republic of the Congo” and “Algeria” and so on, see what you come up with. If the Clinton Foundation were obligated to provide perks or benefits to these nations based on their having been contributors — again, it is not, that is not how the way it works — what is the basis for believing those perks or benefits would not go directly to, or inure to, be earmarked for, the benefit of girls and women in those countries? For that matter, we can say the same as to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the only nations listed in the article that have actually donated to the Clinton Foundation based on the complete listing currently available online. In every nation in this world there are fine women devoted raising the status of girls and women, serving tirelessly toward that end. And, every nation — including the U.S. — is “brutally misogynistic” (sic) in its own right and in its own ways. Statements like these are why we get into trouble, western sisters, with non-western feminists, and correctly so.

    This post, again, is a smear piece, like all of the other smear pieces everywhere around, except that it is actually less accurate than other smear pieces I’ve read, though all are destructive and all constitute propaganda. Again, I would hope for better from Feminist Current. I could continue addressing inaccuracies and misleading commentary and actually, the entire framing and premise of this piece, but this is long enough, very long, and I don’t have the heart or time to continue. I’ve many, many times confronted feminist women over their attacks on Hillary Clinton providing resources, factual information, links, evidence, etc., and I have repeatedly learned that where a feminist woman has decided to participate in the demonizing of Hillary Clinton, she will not be persuaded or even influenced by what is true. Tomorrow or the next day, she’ll be back to publishing false information. This has been among the most saddest of educations for me as someone devoted to the lives of women over many years by now.

    • Ewan Nicholson

      Honestly I don’t know where you are getting you HRC talking points from the State department or a Hilary SuperPac?
      Regarding the propaganda that Gadhafi troops were given Viagra ect.. post bombing the hell out of the place, it turns out that was all false
      “ In a startling declaration to the UN Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice also asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape. She offered no evidence whatsoever to back up her claim. Indeed, U.S. military and intelligence sources flatly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas”. Rice is a liberal interventionist who was one of those to persuade Obama to intervene in Libya. She utilized this myth because it helped her make the case at the UN that there was no “moral equivalence” between Gaddafi’s human rights abuses and those of the insurgents. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/31/the-top-ten-myths-in-the-war-against-libya/
      Please do some research before you keep repeating these kind of state department propaganda . Just like the first gulf war stories of Iraqi troops ripping scores of babies out of incubators, leaving them “to die on the cold floor.”http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/ , it’s what we do before we invade a country to manipulate public opinion that “something must be done”
      Regarding her role in Honduras I think you best listen to the views and testimony of on the ground of activist living in Honduras .In particular the testimony of Berta Cáceres, a Honduran who outlines very clearly the role Hilary played in ensuring US friendly government was established. She was murdered as result of this very same coup. Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres singled out Hillary Clinton for backing Honduran coup “ Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world. Last week, indigenous environmental activist Berta Cáceres was assassinated in her home. In an interview two years ago, Cáceres singled out Clinton for her role supporting the coup. “We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it,” Cáceres said. “It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country. The return of the president, Mel Zelaya, became a secondary issue. There were going to be elections in Honduras. And here she [Clinton] recognized that they didn’t permit Mel Zelaya’s return to the presidency.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QiA8BA8WkM

      unless somebody thinks that somehow the U.S. President and Secretary of State should have the power, authority or wherewithall somehow to overrule the unanimous decision of the ruling body of a foreign government.
      You either naive or wilfully ignorant of the US history to be unware that the US is constantly meddling and arranging coups and takes over across the world to ensure its economic interest are upheld at all times.
      Seriously, have you been living under rock the last 50 years? If you want a list of the coups, overthrows, the US has actively been involved in here it is, its titled “Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List. It’s quite long https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

      I agree completely with the Author of this article, HRC record shows her interest are in upholding the status quo of neoliberalism, capitalism and her own personal and political enrichment. Women in Gaza and Iraqi are just one example of how her past polices and future polices erase their needs, dignity and worth. If you want frank and accurate assessment of HRC I think Naomi Klein really hits the nail on the head https://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

      • Heartsees

        As to Gadhafi and rape: Please look at pages 4 and 5 of the document linked here, which is the Statement by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Statement to the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Libya, pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011). New York, 2 November 20. It reads as follows, beginning on page 4, link follows. Note that this is dated one month after Gadhafi was killed, ending any further investigation as to him.
        “14. The Prosecution is mindful that in Libya, rape is considered to be one of the most
        serious crimes, affecting not just the victim, but also the family and the community,
        and can trigger retaliation and honor-based violence. Accordingly, the Prosecution
        has adopted a strategy which seeks to limit the exposure of victims. The Office is
        therefore organising its investigation by focusing on obtaining alternate evidence and
        identifying avenues of investigation which support charges without the need for
        multiple victim statements. In this respect, the Office has been in contact with sources
        reporting multiple victims of sexual violence, allegedly committed by Gaddafi
        security forces. While it is premature to draw conclusions on specific numbers, the
        information and evidence indicates at this stage that hundreds of rapes occurred
        during the conflict.
        15. The investigation will benefit from a reporting system that has been set up by the
        NTC, through the Ministry of Women and Social Affairs, with the purpose of
        affording rape victims the opportunity to come forward.
        16. The Prosecution has also interviewed a limited number of victims, who were
        kidnapped and raped in unknown secret detention centers.
        17. The information and evidence thus far collected does not yet indicate who may be the
        most responsible for such gender crimes. The Prosecution has collected some
        evidence showing that commanders gave orders to commit rape in the Western
        Mountains area and is screening possible witnesses that indicated that Muammar
        Gaddafi, Al-Senussi and other high officials were discussing the use of rape to
        persecute those considered dissidents or rebels.
        Mr. President:
        18. Let me conclude. There are allegations of crimes committed by NATO forces,
        allegations of crimes committed by NTC-related forces, including the alleged
        detention of civilians suspected to be mercenaries and the alleged killing of detained
        combatants, as well as allegations of additional crimes committed by pro-Gaddafi
        forces. These allegations will be examined impartially and independently by the
        19. The Office was informed that the new Libyan authorities are in the process of
        preparing a comprehensive strategy to address crimes, including the circumstances
        surrounding the death of Muammar Gaddafi. In accordance with the Rome Statute
        the International Criminal Court should not intervene if there are genuine national
        proceedings. Should the Libyan authorities decide to prosecute Saif al-Islam Gaddafi
        and Abdullah al Sanussi for the same crimes under investigation by the International
        Criminal Court, they should submit an admissibility challenge and it will be for the
        ICC Judges to decide.
        20. The Office’s analysis will benefit from the work of the UN Commission of Enquiry,
        which should present a report in March 2012. The Office is coordinating with the
        Commission Chairperson Philippe Kirsch.
        21. The Office will be prepared to present a comprehensive report on the crimes allegedly
        committed by the different parties in Libya since 15 February 2011 and the existence
        of genuine national proceedings, during its third briefing to the UN Security Council
        in May 2012.
        22. In summary, the Office will continue investigations into Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and
        Abdallah Al-Senussi and into rapes and in May will evaluate the possibility for
        further investigations. I should clarify that the possibility to carry out all of these
        investigations will depend on the budget available to the Office. This is a matter
        currently under discussion and it will be decided during December 2011 in the
        upcoming session of the Assembly of States Parties.

      • Heartsees

        Additionally Libya itself has acknowledged the rapes, see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26270890, “Gadhafi Rape Victims to be Compensated,” BBC News, 20 Feb. 2014, which reads in part:
        “Women raped during Libya’s 2011 uprising that toppled long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi should be recognised as war victims, the cabinet has said.
        Its decree, which needs congressional approval, would put the women on the same level as wounded ex-fighters and entitle them to compensation.
        Pro-Gaddafi forces are alleged to have used rape as a weapon.
        As Libya marks three years since the uprising began, voters are electing a body to write a new constitution.
        Some victims can’t go to school… they are suffering in silence and reconciliation efforts are suffering
        It will be made up of 60 people – 20 from each of Libya’s three regions.
        During the revolution, the International Criminal Court said it had collected evidence that Col Gaddafi had ordered the rape of women as a weapon against rebel forces.
        The BBC’s Rana Jawad in the capital, Tripoli, says recognising rape victims is an unprecedented move in the conservative North African state, where it is a taboo subject.
        Our reporter says it is not clear how many will come forward, but it is believed hundreds of women were raped.
        Libyan Justice Minister Salah al-Marghani told the BBC that the decree offers 12 measures, including financial assistance and physical and psychological health care.
        Money would also be available for things “like sending the parents of victims to Hajj – this is to elevate the status of victims, so they are not looked at as a burden”, he said.
        The justice ministry says it will not wait for the national congress to pass the decree in order to avoid further delays.”

      • Tinfoil the Hat

        Right, because bitches always lie about rape.

        That’s where I stopped reading, dude.

    • Tinfoil the Hat

      DAMN, I hope you get a job writing policy in the Hillary Clinton Administration. Standing on my chair and applauding.

  • Slātlantican

    You know, countering “Hillary Clinton has faced untold sexism in her lifetime” with “it’s possible to not like Hillary Clinton and not be sexist” is an egregious, and extremely patronizing, non sequitor. [sic]

    Perhaps I misunderstand you here. Are you asserting that to not like Hillary Clinton is inherently sexist?

  • She hasn’t destroyed women’s lives in other countries. The men of those countries have done the destroying. What is she going to do for poor American women? Allow them access to abortion, give them greater access to cheaper healthcare, reduce the ability of men to buy guns with which to kill them. If she can have any success with a liberal agenda (liberalism = greatest good for the greatest number), she’ll raise taxes on the wealthiest and redistribute the income to women and children.

  • Meghan Murphy

    The fact that Trump may or may not believe his own lies doesn’t make the lying ok…

    • Slātlantican

      Sorry; I didn’t mean to imply that it was okay. I am only saying that I find her lies more frightening than Trump’s. His lying and bluster is obvious, thus less dangerous. She, on the other hand, has fooled millions of people into a state of sycophancy.

      • Bleeps

        Is Trump lying about using nuclear weapons? Do you think he will suddenly become a reasonable, measured, and thick-skinned human being when he has access to that kind of power?

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    Proof? Cites? Or just “I feel like this is true”? Actually, she is provably the most honest of all the candidates. Do your research.

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    Nope. Not this radical feminist. Also, Stein is an idiot. She thinks vaccination should be a personal choice, and promotes homeopathy. She’s also singularly unqualified to be president.

    Nobody gets to speak for “ALL the feminists on the left.”

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    Riggght. You go, girl. Show us how very popular she is because if her evil machinations and “using” women.

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    So because Hillary Clinton isn’t “feminist enough” for you, let’s wait ANOTHER 240 years or so until that perfecf snowflake feminist comes along. Hillary Clinton has singlehandedly done more for women and children than any other political figure in U.S. history. Sorry she doesn’t burn her bra or whatever.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Because Trump is a virulent misogynist and racist and no feminist would support him… But there are numerous sisters (like, women I work with in this movement and women we are all allied with) who express the same or similar critiques to those expressed in this piece. I don’t think we need to agree with everything said here or even anything said here, but I think it’s fair to offer space to those critiques.

  • Independent Radical

    “But, in the current circumstances, where there’s a very real chance that
    Donald Trump could become the next President of the United States, I
    frankly cannot comprehend the timing of this article. In fact I cannot
    comprehend anyone not throwing all their energy into trying to stop that
    happening since I firmly the believe the consequences of a Trump
    presidency would be catastrophic.”

    How is declaring that anyone who doesn’t back Clinton might as well be backing Trump any different from Bush’s declaration that “if you’re not with me then you’re with the terrorists”? The author isn’t backing Trump. She isn’t arguing that we shouldn’t be out on the street boldly denouncing Trump and his supporters. We can do that without backing a mainstream, liberal politician, which is all that Clinton will ever be in practice (and yes, only what she is in practice matters, I don’t care what radical, pro-woman thoughts might be going on in her head).

    I don’t care if you vote for Clinton, just don’t expect her victory to end patriarchy as a system. We can’t even be confident that she’ll mitigate it. She can say what she wants, but until I see real results I will not be impressed. No other leftist politician in the US has followed through on their progressive promises. I don’t believe she will and I don’t care what kind of person she is. A “true feminist” pretending to be moderate so she can get into and remain in power, looks and acts just like a politician who isn’t a feminist at all.

    Though if she were a truly good person, I don’t think she would enter politics. To enter politics is to seek individual power. If she wanted to empower (as in, actually increase the power of) women as a whole she would be mobilising women to take to the street and fight for whatever causes they felt were important (including keeping Trump as far away from a camera as possible), not asking them to back her bid for political power. I don’t buy the idealist claim that the image of a woman as president is going to “inspire” other women to become powerful. It’s not a lack of inspiration that’s keeping women down. There are real material barriers here.

    The fact is, politicians don’t get there power out of nowhere. The vast majority of it get their power from corporate support and a select few throughout history have gotten their power from the people. The latter often get murdered in military coups, not just hated on by misogynistic men being misogynistic. Until that happens, I don’t think the opposition to her can be seen as prove that she’s a genuine threat.

    I don’t excuse such misogyny, but let’s not forget that Anita Sarkeesian received far worse treatment (anyone who dared to make a video game about physically abusing a politician would be in danger of getting arrested for terrorism, something that never happens if you threaten to abuse ordinary women) for making videos and putting forward relatively moderate arguments. Angry men will react to the slightest of provocations. If a woman claiming to be radical is supported by large numbers of such men we should be very suspicious. Nobody can make real change without pissing off these assholes, but that doesn’t mean that every who pisses off these assholes is going to make real change. Angering misogynists is a prerequisite for being a feminist, not prove that you are one.

    As the end of the day, what happens in the United States will be decided by the unstated laws of capitalist expansion and whether or not the masses decide to rise up against whatever horrors ensure from it. Trump is going to build a wall to stop Mexicans from entering the country and pursue a policy isolationism? Over the dead bodies of the companies that profit from the military and economic conquest carried out the United States (and similar powers). I’m hoping he’ll also receive opposition from the millions of Latin Americans who live in the United States and want to maintain contact with their friends and families. As evil (yes, I’m willing to use that word, screw moral relativists who are automatically disgusted by it) as Trump is, him becoming president doesn’t have to mean the end of the world. If enough people rise up against him at any point in his presidency, we can still stop him. Let’s not forget who’s supposed to have power in a democracy.

    If Clinton wins, women and workers still need to rise up in support of whatever policies we feel are important. We need to hold her accountable to whatever promises she makes and that isn’t going to happen if we’re uncritically celebrating an individual woman who has empowered her individual self. We might as well be cheering for some other wealthy, spoilt figurehead, like Beyonce or whoever the liberals think can represent them.

    Even if she is genuinely progressive, we can’t forget about the thousands of equally progressive women who fight far more boldly than she does and face far more resistance and contempt (relative to their influence) and who will never become presidents of the United States, because they weren’t born into wealth and status. Our politics should be about them and not about simply trying to represent them, but about getting them to rise up themselves and directly demand whatever it is the they want to demand (abortion rights, gun control, you name it, though we must not forget to fight against pornography and violent media in general or else such policies may simply be used as an excuse to further pornify society).

    At the end of the day, whether the masses are out on the street demanding progressive change is far more important to me than who wins the election. I’m not afraid of Trump. I’m afraid of those who are enthusiastically voting for such blatant racism and misogyny. If he wins, he can’t admit defeat. If Clinton wins, we can’t see it as an excuse to lie back and hope she fights capitalism and male dominance for us. If we want something done right, we’ve got to do it ourselves. No benevolent politician is going to reach down and save us.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I agree. But in my experience, you are labelled “pro-Clinton” if you so much as mention Hillary without spewing hate towards her.

    I honestly hadn’t thought I could hate American politics more than I already did but here we are.

    Considering our work, over years, it’s pretty amazing and insulting that you would place “feminist” in quotations, simply because we’ve published one piece about Clinton you disagree with.

    We are trying to be fair, here, to our American readers and contributors.

    I hope you can disagree without writing people off entirely. Surely there is more to this movement than Hillary Clinton.

    Consider that not everyone wants to make Hillary Clinton the measure by which we decide whether or not sisters are sisters, nor do we, as a Canadian site, wish to center her in our coverage or politics.

    • Unree

      Feminist in quotes because feminist not in quotes makes a priority of the liberation of women and objects to holding women to double standards that no living person can meet. Feminist Current must have some priority other than women’s interests, but darned if I can tell what it is from an OP that spews a variety of stale and mostly dishonest attacks against the most successful female politician in American history. Maybe it’s mythical purity or perfection that’s more important than opening the presidency of a large country to a gender that has been locked out until now.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Wow. Have you actually read anything on this site ever before?

  • Wire Bead

    Maybe, just a little bit (the twitter fit with the Khan’s was silly, he should delegated that fight to others). However, his tactics are familiar and have worked well in other countries when the economic and political conditions were right. I doubt he will be elected, but not because he is a stupid man, rather, because Hillary had the majority of the corporate and other powerful interests on her side from the start.

    Trump is actually doing very well, considering the forces lined up against him.

  • Heartsees

    I’ve provided direct links to the findings of the investigator appointed by the International Criminal Court at the Hague together with the Libyan governments acknowledgement of the rapes and its intention to compensate Libyan rape victims. The rapes occurred, just as Hillary Clinton said they did, because she knew. I was specifically speaking about rapes ordered by Gadhafi which Hillary Clinton knew about. That’s the only issue here and the only issue I addressed.

    • Ewan Nicholson

      The links I provided question those findings, ones comes from UN investigation

      “ A UN human rights investigator has cast doubts over claims by the
      chief ICC prosecutor of evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had ordered
      mass rapes.

      The International Criminal Court’s Luis Moreno-Ocampo had said today that
      there was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type”
      medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy.

      But Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in
      Libya, suggested that the claim was part of a “massive hysteria”. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/libya-rape-claims-hysteria-investigator/story-e6frf7jx-1226072781882

      Yet my point was the rationalisation of intervention based
      on this type of evidence. Saudi Arabia gives 200 lashes and jail time to a
      woman who had been ganged raped, why haven’t we invaded there? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/17/saudiarabia.international
      They behead people for sorcery. Often
      domestic servants are kept in inescapable servitude ect.. I can give you a long
      list of horrible crimes against women, poor people ect made by countries we
      openly support, arm and consider “allies”. If you think Libya was bombed to help the Libyan
      people free themselves from horrible tyrant, then logic goes we would be bombing
      all countries ruled by horrible tyrants, but we don’t do we, why do think that
      is? You stated…………

      “ Leaving aside the issue of whether you (rhetorical
      “you”) believe that it is ever right for the U.S. to intervene
      militarily in the affairs of a foreign nation — I mean, was it right for the
      U.S. to intervene in Hitler’s Germany?”

      If only it worked that way. Bad evil despots, lording over
      its citizen, then the US benevolent policemen of the world intervenes and saves
      the citizens. Do you know the history and present day political set up of Indonesia
      and the kind of atrocities, mass murder and rape the US has supported and continues
      to support? Do you know about West Papua , East Timor?

      On that geo-political level there is no morality, it’s all extremely
      amoral, it’s about power, profit, access and dominance. Morality is just angle
      to feed to public to when it suits, as how else do you explain such immoral hypocrisy,
      that allows the US to support and arm such barbaric regimes throughout the

  • Heartsees

    As to Honduras, I have not posted what was “said by governments.” I shared from and linked to documents from ASIL, the American Society of International Law, which holds a Consultative Status to various United Nations councils. This body has nothing to do with the Honduran government and is an independent, nonpartisan body. Its goal is to “foster the study of international law and to promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice”. Again, it serves as a consulting body to the UN. Noam Chomsky has opinions but they are just illustrative of Noam Chomsky’s opinions and don’t “reveal” or prove anything about anything (btw, I am a fan of Chomsky.) My point here was supply evidence that there was no coup in Honduras by the common definition, and that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the ouster of Manuel Zelaya. On the contrary, both she and President Obama publicly opposed Zelaya’s ouster and were outspoken in their opposition. But again, they were in no position to override the decisions of the majority of the Honduran Congress or of the Honduran Supreme Court, which ruled against Zelaya’s return or running for re-election not once, but multiple times.

  • Heartsees

    My source for the report about the Gadhafi-ordered rapes was the report of the investigator appointed by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. In fact, the Libyan government acknowledged the Gadhafi-ordered rapes. Here’s an additional link. http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/libya-rape-victims-to-be-compensated-1651026 I am not going to engage your general, nonspecific attacks on Clinton,other than to say your responses tend to demonstrate what I wrote initially, that if someone is intent on demonizing Hillary Clinton, they generally do not let facts or evidence stand in the way of that.

  • Bleeps

    What? Which outburst? Which time?

    Maybe I wan’t clear. He is using hatred, bigotry, hyper-emotionalism, lizard-brain-fear-buzzwords, circus antics, etc. in a calculated way — the same way Republicans have built a base which now supports Trump — to further entrench the interests of the rich, the ‘billionaire’ class (himself, his friends); which is why, the taxes part is so important in accusing him of being calculating and dishonest so far in his political career.

  • Bleeps

    Noam Chomsky is anti-porn.

  • Meghan Murphy

    The way women are treating one another over Clinton is insane, in my opinion. Writing off sisters left and right for having the wrong opinion. Surely this movement is bigger than an American politician!?!?!?

  • Meghan Murphy

    As I’ve mentioned, the perspective and arguments made by the author are arguments that many of our readers and sisters support. Editors, contributors, and readers are not all in agreement with regard to Clinton, and so I believe it is fair to represent more than one viewpoint. Feel free to disagree or be angered by the post, but writing off the site as a whole or as somehow not invested women’s liberation is unfair.

    I certainly don’t fault your objection to the piece, I fault your attacking the site, as a whole, thereby writing off years of feminist work, due to one piece.

  • Meghan Murphy

    “+ the defamation (‘if u vote Clinton, u support Clinton, thus u support imperialism and r right wing’)”

    Yeah this really irks me. As if choosing to vote for Clinton or to defend her against the gendered treatment she’s subjected to = uncritical support or means women are neoliberal faux-feminist twits. It’s such an unnecessary, inaccurate characterization/straw man.

  • Crimelord Canada

    Sadly though, the woman would end up being a man with a ‘female penis’.

  • Wendy Lev

    She doesnt, its for her own political gains and power.

    Its all a front, a sham. If you support her, you should understand what narcissism is and how it works so you wont get disappointed later. You can agree or disagree with her ideas, the issue is the place her ideas come from. Its not from her heart. She lacks empathy. If she really loved women, she would have much trouble with her wars, that endanger women, increases (sexual) violence against them and death. At very minimum she could have taken measures to help the affected women, but she didnt. That is what gives all her ‘feminism’ away. Clinton and Obama had the opportunity to help women, mass raped and killed, in Congo, with overwhelming support from Congress. However they didnt do it, b/c of reasons. But destabilizing countries eg Syria, Libya is a peace of cake for her. Priorities.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I appreciate your feedback. Honestly.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I’m not sure what you are asking me to do here? The post is published, it’s clearly perfectly acceptable for women to disagree with or criticize it. I’m not going to take the post down or throw the author under the bus. I explained why I published the post and stand by that decision. I don’t agree with everything I publish on this site, so I’m not going to be able to personally defend each and every post here — that is up to the author to do, if they wish. I respect the fact that you disagree with it and am taking reader feedback seriously/into account.

    • Unree

      Maybe we are having trouble understanding each other. It is not for me to say that the OP is wrong. Instead I contended that it is in no way feminist, just as cheering for prostitution is not feminist. I wasn’t asking you to do anything.
      In turn you contend you’ve explained why you published the post. But I don’t see any explanation, just truisms: Feminists can disagree; it’s okay to be troubled by the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Those are accurate statements, but they’re not a reason for Feminist Current to publish work that does nothing but re-lob attacks that misogynous male leftists have hurled at Clinton countless times.
      Attacks that don’t consider women, just pile on the brogressive talking points. Warmonger, rich, Wall Street, blah blah. We’ve been hearing this dude rhetoric in my country for a year now.
      Castigating the only woman who has ever had the chance to lead a big nation with accusations that hold her to an unattainable double standard, and dismissing achievements of hers that made girls and women better off, is many things but none of them are feminist. This essay should never have been published on a feminist website.

  • Lynda Bigelow

    an insightful and deeply analytic piece of writing…I wish what the author is saying was not true and that I could be happy to see a feminist in the position that HC is in…but we will have to wait a little

  • Wendy Lev

    If you pay attention to her actions and corruptions, its quite easy to derive from that what kind of person Hillary is. Do some research, also on her personality (narcissist at minimum). The information is out there. I trusted Hillary until I started doing research. No, not just right wing sites, but science etc. Give it a try.

  • Tinfoil the Hat


  • Karen Eisen

    It’s not about Hillary Clinton – it’s about the movement of women supporting Hillary Clinton!
    When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice-President (on the Mondale/Ferraro Democratic Presidential ticket 1984) – well Ferraro was from a lower-income “immigrant” family; was an advocate for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence; acknowledged the Nicaraguan Revolution and opposed U.S. intervention in Nicaragua; was a supporter of labour unions (and had labour union endorsement and support); and advocated for the poor and low-income people. Guess what? Ferraro was vilified by the Left because some white middle class women and NOW were supporting her (which is supposedly just awful that a female candidate might have some white middle class women supporting her).
    Yes, Ferraro was further to the Left than Hillary Clinton. In fact, Walter Mondale has said that he choose Ferraro over more experienced female candidates because of her progressive politics. But it’s interesting that both Ferraro and Hillary Clinton face the same criticism. Haven’t you heard progressives complain that Hillary Clinton is a white woman. Hasn’t anyone noticed that Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are also white? (Jill Stein escapes criticism because she has zero chances of being elected.) And the Libertarian candidates are also white, but it’s okay because they are men.
    While it’s true that Hillary Clinton has many flaws…. yet, Ferraro fit the definition of a feminist candidate – they both receive the same criticism.

  • LuckPushedMeFirst

    I will concede that she is inexperienced as a politician. She’s not my ideal choice- far from it. Just the best choice on the table if one refuses to vote for the “lesser evil”.

  • Matthew Steenburg

    If feminism wants male allies, the best way to achieve this, is to find common ground. I can think of several areas where there is common goals between what I’d like to see in the world, and what feminism strives for. That being said, its an unfortunate reality that there’s too much to be gained for men going against feminism than for it, that there will be few and far between allies. I don’t say this to be discouraging, rather, I’m simply making an observation. The men gaining power over women as a means of “access” (it’s a theory, and a really aweful one endorsed and used by Trump – his joke about grabbing women as a reference to it), is much too common still unfortunately, for this to end anytime soon. Hopefully, we can overcome this culture of violence.

    There are factors at play, but not all hope is lost.

    • marv

      “If feminism wants male allies, the best way to achieve this, is to find common ground.”

      This is akin to modifying prostitution to appease men instead of abolishing it. Would you offer similar advice to black people dealing with white power? Common ground only reforms oppression, further normalizing it.

      • Matthew Steenburg

        So you don’t want male allies? Actually, I’d rather you not try to appease men, that’s actually a bad way to get allies too (for reasons you already know).

        By common ground, I mean, if you and they both want to work towards something, why not do so? You want more women in STEM for instance, right? I want my daughter to have a greater future than my present, so let’s work together to make sure that no girl is deprived of a fair education she deserves. That’s the type of common ground I’m suggesting. Both of us benefit, neither of us lose out.

        I could be wrong in assuming that feminism wants male allies. In all reality, feminism doesn’t need male allies, and doesn’t have to have them. It will do just fine without them, as it has done before. Do feminists/does feminism want male allies?