MsClintonogyny Redux

After doing this (writing opinions) for over 20 years …

mey-velocipede-1870[769290].jpg

No, this illustration has no relevance to the topic at hand … I don’t think. But I may be wrong-BC.


… it’s rare when I don’t get a feeling of déja vu. If there is a major political issue, a major political personage, or a major political issue involving a major political personage, it’s almost certain I have written of it at some point or other.

And when there are recurring issues or personages—e.g., the endless efforts by religious fundamentalists to deny reality, the endless efforts of mega-rich people to influence American governance to the end of making themselves even mega-richer, the endless efforts of Republicans to convince Americans that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a disasterous half-wit behind whose half-witted ideology religious fundamentalists and the mega-rich hid their machinations—it is almost certain I have written about them several times. And believe me when I say that sometimes, it is tough to find anything new to say or a new way to say it.

That may be the problem with the Clintons, yes? It’s not so much who they are, what they believe, what they have done, or what they would do—it’s that they are still around. We will never have to worry about reading another opinion on Bob Dole, for instance. Or Newt Gingrich. Or Larry Craig. Or any number of political figures who have, for one reason or the other, faded into irrelevance.

But one Clinton or the other has been making world-altering decisions for 25 years. Either as President, Senator, Secretary of State, presidential candidate … one or the other has been commanding our attentions for over a generation. So it has been impossible for me to not write about one or the other, just as it has become impossible to write something we don’t already know, and likely have known for years.

So why try?

Waaay-yull … other than the fact that one of them is running for president as the most qualified candidate, EVER, against the most unqualified candidate, EVER! … I desperately want Hillary to win—and for several reasons, not only because I desperately want the Trump beast to lose.

But at this point in the process, I have decided there is little point in looking for a fresh approach the subject, not when I have on hand a rather large collection dealing with the same matter. And it’s all stuff I have written, myself. No need to attribute it to other sources, ha!

And since I continue to believe—have seen no evidence that would lead me to stop believing since as far back as Bill and Hillary’s interview on 60 Minutes in 1992—that the primary reason Hillary isn’t stomping the Orange Beast into a grease spot in the polls is that, just as Obama’s presidency has roused and enraged the behemoth of racism, the prospect of Hillary’s presidency is prodding that monster’s equally hideous sibling—misogyny.

I wrote as much almost exactly 10 years ago, and five months before she announced her 2008 candidacy. Again, I still believe it and want to say it again. So here it is. Except for a few minor changes to the formatting, this is the Boise Weekly column from August 23, 2006, just as I wrote it.

MsClintonogyny

Is it real, or managed?

Men, I’m conducting an important survey here. It’s vital that you answer as honestly as possible. Ladies, for the time being, you may relax. This survey is an evaluation of current gender-related political attitudes (or political-related gender attitudes, depending how you prioritize attitudes) and there is no way the questions can be formulated for both you and your studly counterparts. But don’t wander off, Sis. Your turn’s coming!

First question: Gentlemen, in your adult lives, have you ever allowed a woman to tell you what to do? (Check one … and listen, I am not a woman so you needn’t feel emasculated if you follow my directions.)

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • Hell no!

Those who answered “Yes” may go hang out with the ladies. If you answered either “No” or “Hell no!” on the first question, in which hypothetical situation would you conceivably allow a woman to tell you what to do?

  • If my job depended on it.
  • If my marriage depended on it.
  • If my getting laid depended on it.
  • If the building were on fire and she knew the only way out.
  • There is no scenario my brain can imagine that would get me to turn into a such a big wuss.

 Is it acceptable for a woman to tell you what to do if she is a head-of-state?

  • Yes, but only if she’s got an army, a navy and an air force to back her up.
  • No, because I’d never live in any wuss country that would elect a woman to head-of-state, anyway.

Were Hillary Clinton elected America’s head-of-state, what choice would you have but to let a woman tell you what to do, even if in the most indirect ways?

  • I would move to a no-wuss country.
  • Everyday, I would tell everyone I know, “She ain’t the boss of me!”
  • Maybe I’d do what she says, but I’d make goddam sure every other woman in my life would know I don’t like it one bit!

* * *

At this point in the survey, let us take a short break while I tell you why I am conducting it in the first place. You see, on August 12, the local non-locally-owned newspaper ran an item about Hillary Clinton on the front page of their national/world news section. There, framed by stories about the foiled British terrorist plot and Israel’s war with Hezbollah, was a two-column picture of her along with the bold title, “Why Some People Hate Hillary Clinton.”

Holy Smokes! There must be some important new information here, I thought, or why else would an allegedly-respectable newspaper print such a thing in such a prominent way?

As it turned out, there was nothing new to be learned from the “news” article. It merely repeated what everyone has known for years, that conservatives believe Hillary to be ambitious, calculating, an anathema to traditional values, liberal, and still married to Bill—any one of which is sufficient reason for them to hate her.

Why, this article didn’t even mention the main reason conservative white men hate Hillary, I realized. And at that moment, I took it upon myself to rectify the article’s glaring omission by writing a column dealing with the main reason conservative white men hate Hillary—which to me is as obvious as the strut on a peacock: Conservative white men regard anyone who isn’t a conservative white man as a threat. And like conservative men everywhere—white, black or in-between—the worst threat of all is a strong, intelligent, talented woman who, if they don’t stay eternally vigilant, might tell the whole world what sexually-insecure dinkwads most conservative men are.

I showed the article to a friend and explained what I had planned. I expected him to agree with me, him being a liberal white man much like myself. But no. I think you’re wrong, Bill  he said. People hate Hillary simply because they’re being told to hate Hillary. And he pointed to the article I held in my hand as evidence.

There was more to the discussion, to be sure, but essentially, my friend thinks that many so-called “facts” are facts only because they are repeated often enough that easily-manipulated people come to believe them. It’s not a new tactic. Religions couldn’t exist without it and many political leaders have nothing else to show for themselves other than the tenuous reality they fabricate out of endless repetition.

In Hillary’s case (believes my friend), a great share of those who say they hate her do so only because they regularly are told that many, many other people hate her. Certainly, there is a hard-core cadre of conservatives who detest all things to the left of themselves, but their numbers are greatly inflated by malleable minds who couldn’t name a leftist position if it were pinned to their underwear. These people have a great need to know there is a crowd somewhere, just so that they can go along with it. And thanks to lazy, sloppy, trite and meaningless “news” articles like “Why Some People Hate Hillary Clinton,” it’s easy to guide such pathetic souls into the fold.

At any rate, that’s what my friend thinks. As for me, I still go with the “sexually-insecure dinkwads” explanation. But I can’t prove it. Not yet, anyway. But when the results of this survey are tabulated … coagulated … uh, congregated … whatever it is you do with survey results … we’ll know for sure. So gentlemen, back to work.

* * *

What precisely is the source of your visceral abhorrence of Hillary Clinton?

  • Because if Clinton gets to be president, what kind of example would that set for my Luanne, who already says she won’t bring me a beer when I want it, not as long as I got two good legs.
  • Because it don’t take no stinking village to raise a damn kid. Not while I still got partial custody.
  • Because I’ve seen her type before! Like that snooty bitch Caroline McClatchey back in highschool! Thinks she’s so smart! Who does she think she is, anyway?! … laughing at me in front of my football buds!
  • Because if God had of wanted women to run things, he’d o’ given them the balls!

* * *

Darn! Out of room. And I have so many more questions. Okay dudes, keep track of your answers. We’ll take this up again come ‘08.

platonic-love[769291].jpg
Yes, this illustration does have some relevance to the topic at hand. But if I have to explain what that relevance is, you’re probably voting for Trump anyway, and I’d be wasting my time-BC.

Advertisements