“I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar!”

Hillary Clinton

“We came, we saw, he died!”

It might be the case that some of my readers will take my current remarks as a criticism of women, generally. It is not. However, there are certain more extreme feminist elements, globally, that will necessarily take offense. I am prepared for this reaction. However, the necessity of my brief remarks obviates any hesitation I might have otherwise felt. Still, I will not deny that I am going after a certain element in the feminist movement, an element that, through its own successes, continues to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the system over which it seeks to achieve dominion.

Equality has been the clarion call of all modern democracies at least since the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Sounds noble. Doesn’t it?  But, this term — equality — is squirrelly. It’s meaning is often unclear and its use often murky. It waves like a flag in a strong crosswind, with little behind it but a lot of air. Is this egalitarianism, I ask?  No it’s equality of opportunity, comes the hasty reply.  Oh, okay. And what opportunities are those exactly? This is the next question. Does stepping into the patriarchy, or better yet, getting to the top of the male hierarchy give you good grounds to celebrate.  And, exactly what are we celebrating anyway?  Do some women want to succeed in the power ball hierarchy in order to reorder it, soften it, humanize it, make it user friendly? Or do they just desire, and then demand, control of the reins?  If women want to condemn the patriarchy, then why do they wish to take the reins and then be taken on the same ride? There are many slippery slopes in this world, and the road up the side of this power pyramid is one of the slipperiest of all. Of course, in this regard, it is much like that slippery slope of curtailing freedoms in order to insure freedom.

But I am already getting off track. It is really not freedom or equality that I wish to discuss, although these concepts underlay the historical movement for women (and minorities) to be thrust to the top echelons of the pyramid. It seems that the same slogan applies as well to women as it does to men: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Successful women seem to be as prone to excess as ‘successful’ men.   It is not equality we were after, after all; it was success within the systems of hierarchy.  We just want to get beyond that “glass ceiling” and reach the highest high, the apex of the pyramid if we so desire.  And let us show you how we can do the job as well as any man can. For example:

Empress Wu Zetian (of China) (625 -705) — Ruthlessly sought to gain power and had many noblemen and noblewomen killed or exiled in order to achieve it.

Isabelle I of Castille (of Spain) (1451- 1504) — Initiated the Spanish Inquisition.

Maria Theresa (of Austria) (1717- 1780) — Tripled the size of the army and increased taxes in order to guarantee a steady income for the government and the military.

Catherine II (of Russia) (1729 – 1796) Expanded the Russian Empire to the Black Sea by defeating the Ottoman Empire in two major wars.

Or we can look more recently to Margaret Thatcher, Madeline Albright, Susan Rice, or Victoria (Nudelman) Nuland.  All making names for themselves by being tough and ruthless. Tougher then men. “Fuck the EU!”

And now we come to former USA Secretary of State, and would-be POTUS, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton – She gloatingly declares, after the overthrow and street execution (by gangshot) of Libyan Prime Minister, Muammar Gaddafi: “We came. We saw. He died!” And more recently she has compared Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Is this what the fight for equality was all about? How to be as equally stupid and hateful as John McCain or John Kerry? Is this really the legacy of the women’s movement that we want defining the future of the USA, as brief as that future may be. My beef is with a movement that wants to thrust women into the patriarchy, to take the reins of the bull as callously as the men they might replace. We’ve already seen what the push for equality has done for/to the first black president of this nation. He has become yet more cold, calculating and callus than any of those white guys who have gone before. All the soft-shoe rhetoric amounting to whispered little nothings. Can you imagine the apocalypse that will surely ensue if Hillary Clinton were ever to win her way to the top slot of the American power pyramid? I can! And I’m scared!

Advertisements

71 Responses to “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar!”

  1. Malthus says:

    It is going to be interesting what the responses will be to this. For myself I consider all people seeking power or as you so aptly say the top of the pyramid are useless wastes of my time to even considering them as humans and more like robots that have mutated into selfish greedy automatons and have been willing to sell their souls if they even had any. Perhaps that is the compound that has stirred the desire to climb that ladder. I say to hell with all people who think we need leaders and those that wish to be leaders. This is a great way to approach the subject Sandy. Good for you.

  2. cliffkrolick says:

    Good Thoughts, and well laid out, unfortunately, this issue has little to do with men or women it has to do with greed and downright stupidity equally shared by both sexes that are bred for nothing less then me…mine…rah rah rah.

  3. DA says:

    God, doesn’t she look hideous! She’s dangerous precisely because she feels she has something to prove. Another Harry Truman in the making!

    • cliffkrolick says:

      Yes and here is a womans’ point of view.
      Or you could take the case of Mary Livermore, an activist during the 1860’s who was so appalled by the care sick and wounded soldiers were receiving during the American Civil War that she decided to start an agency to help them. She organized a giant fair known as the great Northwestern Sanitary Fair to raise money to aide the soldiers. She collected donations of money plus goods to sell or auction. The number of items was so extensive she needed a building to store them in. Donations had certainly given her the financial means to do so. But when she went to purchase a warehouse, she was told, because she was a woman, she could not buy the building. She would need a man to sign the papers. Inequality of that nature is inexcusable.

      Many women risked their lives for a cause they believed in, yet barely received any credit (or pay) for their work. It took a special act of Congress for them to get any kind of pension for working as nurses during the war until 1892. They couldn’t even vote until 1920. I have talked to women who remember that injustice.

      Even today, women earn about 78% of what men earn for the same jobs and there are still many jobs women are routinely skipped over.

      Equality isn’t just about power. It is also about basic rights.
      Lyn Sudlow

      • kulturcritic says:

        Great points Lyn, Thanks. But, I really was speaking about hierarchy, and its attractiveness to a certain element of the female population. Women are not the problem; hierarchy is. Sandy

      • DA says:

        HillaBeast in particular has a chip on her shoulder and an axe to grind. She wants to prove she’s more “manly” than any of the men, that she can climb the mountain top in a man’s world. All the wrong reasons to be seeking power, but probably why she’ll succeed anyway. Call it ‘Season of the Bitch’. And the Harry Truman comparison was no accident. He was another ball-less little twerp who needed to prove something. Two dropped Atomic Bombs and a preventable Cold War later it’s fair to say he proved it alright.

        • Shirley Braverman says:

          Harry Truman was a strong man of principle who never sought power. He earned his reputation in Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas by providing the farmers with decent roads and electricity. His honesty and integrity was never forgotten by them, the little people whom he always represented. In congress he sought out those who were war profiteers and had them tried. He and his wife hated Washington and the power plays. He didn’t want to run for VP but was drafted and he definitely did not wish to become president but courageously accepted the challenge. The bombs, if you read his autobiography was a purely pragmatic decision. General Marshall was already reporting that Europe and Russia had no food for the coming winter and thousands were going to starve unless we could mount a massive campaign to save them. Also, after four years of war, America was hurting. Estimates of men that would be lost in an invasion of Japan were 1/2 million since, from previous experience, Japan would no doubt fight down to the last man, woman and child. They were going to be killed one way or another and it was going to be very expensive. He had enough courage to do the right thing and end the war quickly. As for the cold war, he had to reign in his Generals. MacArthur wanted to start a war with China and Harry stopped him by firing him. Presidents are not saviors but just ordinary men. Truman was an admirable man who wielded his power well.

          • follyofwar says:

            In 1944, with FDR’s health failing, the democrat head honchos were scared to death that Henry Wallace (who was FDR’s choice) would become VP. Wallace wanted friendly relations with the USSR, and wanted to usher in the age of the “common man.” Thus, he was a huge threat to the corporate elite. Oliver Stone, (along with Peter Kuznick), goes into great detail, in the terrific book and series “The Untold History of the US” about how the VP nomination was stolen from Wallace at the last minute, and given to their man Truman, at the democrat convention.

            Shirley, it appears to me that your paragraph comes straight out of US textbooks, which are full of pro-US propaganda. The highly dubious part about the US losing 1/2 million men in an invasion of the Japanese mainland was used as justification for dropping the bomb(s). If Truman was such an honorable man, why did he not give the Japanese time to surrender before dropping the Nagasaki bomb 3 days later? Even Eisenhower was against employing those awesome WMD’s.

          • Disaffected says:

            Kudos to HT and FofW for attempting to set the record straight. Contrary to the conventional US Truman “HIS story,” we now know much better. Harry Truman, in truth, was a small man within a small party at a time that being a shrinking violet was celebrated. Words like coward, simpleton, and even “traitor” come to mind at this late point, but of course we now have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Let’s just agree to leave it at “a man for his times” and leave it at that, shall we?

      • searoemer says:

        We can debate the fairness of what happened yesterday: but it is today we need to worry about. Gender seems so irrelevant when we exclude power and money.

        What seems to vibrate all of us is the notion that survival is determined by asexual crazy folks who don’t care who you sleep with or what orfice you pee from. All they know is what they can do control us and who they can kill to keep them in power.

  4. the Heretick says:

    This issue reminds me of the slavery issue which America rightly congratulates its collective self for abolishing, but hold on……………
    Let’s dig a little deeper.
    What was slavery about?
    Profit.
    Enslaving Africans was a neat little trick, a very convenient marker, hard to hide the color of ones skin.
    But in the final analysis, it was all about the money, and that incentive, money, profit and power still remains.

    The base impulse to lord it over the hoi polloi still remains, the lies become a bit more complicated, the cast changes, but the song remains the same. It is a class struggle, it always has been, now open, now hidden.

    • Disaffected says:

      I see your Blues Classic and raise you a Rock Classic reprised by an all star cast to honor a rock legend named Harrison who wrote the song and allegedly played it, although it’s since been revealed that another rock legend named Clapton actually played most or all of the solo. This was also the first time that I became a Prince believer, although I have to wonder why and where he’s been hiding all of that guitar virtuosity all these years.

    • Disaffected says:

      By the way HT, we are currently in the midst of an EPIC snowfall over here which is apparently headed your way next, so batten down the hatches!

  5. FIDO says:

    Ok, so we are just substituting one idiot for another idiot, one with a penis for one witn boobs. How refreshing and new can that be. The real issue is if hitlery becomes president, how will she deal with Putin. She will feel the need to be tough and make a stupid move and cost us the world.

    • Disaffected says:

      Fortunately, she’ll be 69 by the time she would take office. There’s a lot of hand waving about how that won’t make any difference, but I think it will, as far as getting elected anyway. The generations, they are a turning, and age is not viewed favorably anymore, so I’m not sure she’ll get all the support she thinks she will. We’ll see how it all plays out, but I’m not sure she’s the marketing phenomenon that some people think she is. She always comes off as a bit desperate when she campaigns as well, which is why Obama beat her in 2008 in the first place. In the end, her main selling point is still that she’s a woman who is married to a former President, which is a stupid reason to be want to be president. Her political maneuverings and book release since then have all been transparently and shamelessly self-serving, per the already well established Clinton model. Identity politics worked out horribly with Obama and it would work out even worse with her. Personally, I think her whole candidacy has been engineered as a cynical swipe at the stupidity of the electorate; a statement on the part of the rich and powerful for us all to be careful what we wish for or we just might get it.

  6. Irina says:

    Very interesting article. To be frank I’ve always thought that women who long for power are not equal to men in cruelty and roughness, they are so much worse.

    • kulturcritic says:

      Yes, Irina. It is an interesting situation. My first point is that hierarchy is basically a male construction, beginning with the earliest city states and perhaps earlier. 2. Women rightfully have criticized these male constructs (the patriarchal towers). 3. The objectification, control and enslavement of peoples that are the result of such systems is deplorable, and will lead much of the life on this planet to extinction. 3. Some women feel compelled to become players in the system (oftentimes with the feeling they can ‘change it’). 4. But most of those are either changed by it or have already been indoctrinated with the values of the power hierarchy to just double-down and roll their dice in the game of chance – history. 5. In so doing the women in power positions are no better, and often worse than the men.

  7. Malthus says:

    I still say this is about the whole concept of leadership. Maybe it is because of what is taught in our school systems, conformity and obedience, creating the herd mentality and the illusion we need leaders to survive. Creating both women and men who want to lead the herd down the best path, their idea of the best route while always creating enough crises to keep themselves in power and enjoying that golden toilet seat while doing so and bringing fame and worship to themselves from the great unwashed.

    • Disaffected says:

      I think what turns people off most about Clinton is that she wants it so much. She’s been prostituting herself to whatever special interest group who will support her since she left the White House in 2000. And she’ll also continue the party role reversal that Obama started in 2008, with Ds governing as Rs and Rs going certifiably bat-shit crazy in response.

      It’s all smoke and mirrors at this point anyway. The US corporate political and economic model is running on fumes now and the end of the road is in sight. What will come next is hard to say, but I still expect it to something akin to my Walk Hard scenario, where corporate America officially assumes control and abandons large swaths of the population via the lock-down privatization and monetization of everything using a new currency, probably all electronic. Localization might work in some isolated instances, but there’s simply too many of us for it to work on any large scale, and it would also not have to interfere with corporate interests.

      • kulturcritic says:

        Of course, a nuclear holocaust would do the trick as well, DA!

        • Malthus says:

          According to the association of atomic scientists we are about two minutes to midnight on nuclear war.

        • DA says:

          Yep, the nukes would solve a large part of the population problem in one swipe, wouldn’t they? And there’s even talk among some of the crazies that the resulting nuclear winter would put a stop to global warming – truly a proverbial “win-win” scenario! And the “coming out party” afterward would enable the “natural selection” process of who to keep and who to set adrift. And if you have to ask which group you belong in, rest assured it’s the latter.

  8. Disaffected says:

    The more I look at that picture up top the more I wonder how anyone could imagine the old girl being fit for office at her age and mileage. Hubby Bill ain’t looking too hot these days either, and I don’t imagine him kicking the bucket while she’s in office would be too good for her mental or physical health either. Fortunately, I think these issues will all come up one way or another on the campaign trail and she will be eliminated. Not sure whatever we get instead will be any better, but I think Jeb Bush will win it all anyway. He’s the least crazy and offensive idiot remaining in an altogether crazy and offensive bunch. And just imagine, then the Bush bunch will hold the official legacy crown for American Prez’s, with another George already in the pipeline! No doubt the best looking of the bunch as well!

  9. leavergirl says:

    Well, here’s another woman pitchin’ in. I mostly agree with the sentiments expressed here. And I doubt Ms. Clinton has a chance, she is so roundly disliked.

    A minor disagreement: I don’t think women are as venal as men. Generally, I would say, that more than not, women are ok in my book. Many men, on the other hand, are not (ok in my book). And just look at crime stats — they corroborate my bias.

    As to your claim, Sandy, that women’s cause was hurt when clawing one’s way to power became a worthy goal of feminism… I could not agree more. Cheers.

    • kulturcritic says:

      Leavergirl (Vera) it is wonderful to hear from you. Of course, men have had more practice at being venal, so their acts of hatefulness should be more liberal and grander. But, there is certainly a cache of women who are closing in on the big prize. I am glad you and I have some agreement on this issue. I hope things are well with you. Cheers, as always, Sandy

    • follyofwar says:

      Well, if Hillary had no chance, the democrat challengers would be coming out the woodwork, and they’re not. The Left wants Elizabeth Warren to take her on, but so far no dice. James Webb might be a good candidate, but probably no more than 2% of the population knows who he is. And gaffe prone Biden, is even several years older than Clinton. Millions of democrat women feel they were cheated 8 years ago when Obama came out of nowhere, and now it is THEIR turn. They will not be at all happy if the dems turn to another (probably white) male.

      • vera says:

        They are scraping the bottom of the barrel, then, just like GOP was last election. I agree with those who say that if the left cannot mount anyone better, the right takes it.
        I too feel I was cheated last election, but Hillary ain’t gonna fix that.

        • kulturcritic says:

          What is with you ladies? Nobody was cheated. We got what the money folks paid for. And the only thing Ms. Clinton can fix is her sights on the throne of power. She care for nothing else. She is just like the rest, only worse, because (as a woman) she feels compelled to prove to all the white males that she can be just as ruthless and soulless as any of them. She will take W and O’s lead and she will up the amperage higher than any Southern hillbilly, wife-beating, bible-thumping gun-toting republican in the land. She is Ayn Rand and Joan of Arc.

  10. freeacre says:

    The Democratic Party keeps sending me opinion polls. I keep telling them that I wouldn’t vote for Hillary if they put a gun to my head. When she said that about Gaddafi after they shoved a knife up his butt, I thought she was monstrous. I still do.
    The women’s movement was co-opted by Henry Kissinger and that Judas goat, Gloria Steinem. Instead of the idea of valuing the contributions of women and seeking compensation for what they do in the home, raising children, et al, as well as lifting the restrictions on careers, it morphed into women acting like men. So now we are “free” to be in combat, send our children to day care while we work at the same soul-sucking jobs the men do, be athletes, get into politics, etc, and generally act just like men. Then, the lamestream media jumped in promoting Madonna and other singers and movie stars and sexually objectified women more than we ever could have imagined. Now, there is more soft porn on Huffington post than was ever in Playboy Magazine. Now that women are mostly working out of the home, we have gangs, bullies, few sit down dinners with homemade healthy food, single mom’s on welfare, and feral children growing up riding skateboards on sidewalks.Society has deteriorated to the point of being unrecognizable. The women’s liberation movement became a pimp job.

  11. freeacre says:

    I like your idea of support groups based on the AA tradition, leavergirl. I think, the way things are today, the groups should be for “human” support groups – men as well as women. We should unite against the Machines taking over. Stock markets run by logarithms, manufacturing replacing workers with robotics, citizenry replaced with consumers, parents replaced by agencies, police replaced by para-military forces, etc. We should renew the concept of “making love,” as opposed to “having sex.” We should resist being used as commodities, cannon fodder for resource wars, test subjects for the pharmaceutical companies, and becoming vulgar, ignorant tools of the global corporations. All of these are assaults on our humanity.

  12. freeacre says:

    Another thing: As humans, we would, of course, need to assess ourselves in relationship to our Great Mother, the Earth, as well as Her other creatures. If we are to thrive, we need to realize that we need to stop polluting the land, seas, and air and killing off our fellow species on this planet. If we don’t, we are truly doomed.

    • Disaffected says:

      We’re doomed then, because industrialism only knows one way. And most of our environmental impact is simply a result of our numbers. There’s too many of us for our environment to handle. We’re experiencing the late stages of the process now, but this has been going on since at least the mid 1800’s.

      • follyofwar says:

        Former university professor and radical environmentalist Guy McPherson predicts near term extinction of the human race. Too many, what he calls “automatic feedback loops” have been set in motion that cannot be stopped. He’s predicting the end before 2050.

        • DA says:

          He could certainly be right too. The total lack of understanding of the exponential function is one of humanity’s biggest blind spots. Fortunately for me at least, I’ll be dead by then either way, as will a lot of people who don’t suspect that they will. Almost no one gets a choice when it’s their turn to step off the bus.

        • leavergirl says:

          Oh so he’s moved it up from 2030? Well. He’s been movin’ the dates for many years now. If they still stoned false prophets, he’d be under a pile of rocks by now.

          • DA says:

            I think his original 2030 date has a decent chance of success. Since it’s not a linear progression, it won’t seem like it until the last year or two.

            • leavergirl says:

              Ya know, people ought to learn that prophecies don’t pay. But they never do… I see it as an age-old manipulation device. How did the “no cars on roads by 2012” pan out? How is it going for the one of “stone age by 2019”? No matter. Carry on without me. 😉

              DA, it’s not about the odds. Odds are crappy for all sorts of things right now. It’s the bluster, the pretend-certainty, and the gullible following that gets my goat.

              • DA says:

                As with all things, it’s buyer beware. I have no idea whether Guy’s even remotely correct, although he makes some pretty good points either way. But I notice not a lot of people are listening to him these days anyway, so it’s all mostly just entertainment at this point. I’m more of the philosophy these days that the “end of the world” will happen for each of us when we die, regardless of whether that’s in an “epochal event” or under the far more likely ordinary circumstances. I think his points that it COULD happen should be considered by more people (especially in power) than they are, but in the end that’s simply not for me to decide. IMO, global warming and environmental degradation are too far along now to do much about, especially considering we’ve shown absolutely NO willingness to do so, so why worry about something you’re powerless to prevent anyway? And if the boys in DC decide to ‘get all jiggy wid’ the nuclear option, it’ll all be a moot point anyway.

                • leavergirl says:

                  Yup. Moreover, the elites are heavily invested in ignoring feedback. It’s one of the privileges of power, not having to listen to the underlings (Gaia being seen as one of the underlings, of course). So there we have it. Thanks for the conversation, DA! Always a pleasure. 🙂

  13. cliffkrolick says:

    Grow a big Garden help your neighbor in need/ organize your town, community…Do it now,
    No better time or need then NOW

  14. DA says:

    Looks like Hillary has her first political misstep. Might amount to nothing, but does indicate a certain Clinton-like tone deafness about issues that may come back to haunt her again. Like the Lewinsky affair, it’s one of those things that has you scratching your head and wondering how could anyone so smart act so stupid?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

  15. cliffkrolick says:

    Hillary will undoubtedly be the Demo candidate. As we all know its controlled by about the same money as the Repubs. And my prediction is that the Repubs will win this time. It would probably serve this blog and all the people better if we just got on with it and stopped dillying around the big issue. We may as well fill the jails sooner then later.

Join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s