One arguments against the feminist movement is that they sold out to Bill Clinton in order to advance their political interests within the Democratic Party.
For years, conservatives and independents have lobbed this point at feminists, and that leftist group of women have always responded that it was “just about sex” or “Monica was a consenting adult.” In fact, some groups use Monica as a champion of advancing the sexual revolution and opening the door for women to assert themselves through use their bodies or sexuality.
Katha Pollitt’s comments on Journolist effectively prove that feminists did sell out to the Democrats in order to protect Clinton, and they knowingly did it:
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
Pollitt proves that feminists do not have the best interests of women at heart. They care more about advancing the causes of their political party. Put her quotes in perspective of the current debate going on over conservative women and feminism. If they distract us or try to “refudiate” the issue by making fun of certain Mama Grizzlies or issuing mandates that we’re not good for women because we don’t support progressive causes, they’re pulling a Jeremiah Wright.
How can this ideology group be trusted? How do you know when they are working to advance the cause of women and when do you know that their working to protect a slimy politician because he has the precious D after his name? From this point forward, everything, and I mean everything, that feminists say should be viewed from this perspective.
If they previously sold women out over the likes of Bill Clinton, what happens when a true threat comes their way? What happens when conservative women –the apparent blood enemy — are closer to achieving the goals that they’ve never been able to reach in the past five decades?
Things get vicious. Oh, sort of like their coverage of a certain figure from Alaska….
3 Comments
Any principled feminist–and this goes for the feminists I know personally–would and have acknowledged that while they supported Bill Clinton’s policies, they found his actions abhorrent and contemptable. On the other side of the coin, the Clinton sex scandals did get conservatives to validate much of what feminists had been fighting for–condemnation of sexual harassment and using a power position to get away with such harassment. The “political hack” feminists like Pollitt and Steinem (and yes, Hillary Clinton) didn’t discredit the principles of feminism so much as their own pathetic selves.
I agree with you to a point. I think there’s several levels of feminism. One that actually stands for something and the perception level that Katha Pollitt, Steinem and the Feministing gals represent. While I’ll always disagree with feminists over abortion, there are many issues that agree with (equality, worldwide state of women, effects of the media, etc.). However, there have been few substantive debates on these issues in the past few years. Instead, the feminism that Pollitt and her colleagues spout is taken to represent the entire movement. In this case, perception is reality.
Katha Pollitt is not a true feminist, nor is she a hardcore Clinton defender in the Journolist emails.
She’s an OBOT, and they are radically different than regular dems.
Here she is calling Chelsea Clinton an ALIEN:
Katha Pollitt
Aug 30, 2008, 11:07am
“It would be quite astonishing if the gov of alaska, a person in full view of the public, could perpetrate this deception. SOMEBody delivered a baby after all — there would be medical records, hospital admissions, etc. But I agree with Addie — she doesn’t look especially pregnant to me in the photo, but then nor does the teen daughter in (supposedly) contemporaneous pictures. Maybe it’s an alien baby, like Hillary’s.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/raw-journolist-emails-on-palins-downs-child/print/#ixzz0ur7nWOLQ
Leave a Reply