The blog the other day had many hits, some very encouraging comments sent to me, likes on Facebook and Twitter. But all of the actual comments to the post were venomous, misogynistic, and full of errors (grammatical and factual). I chose, after much deliberation, to not publish them. Sadly, the people who like posts rarely make public comments. My comments section is moderated because the internet makes people with baseless commentary brave, and I’ll not have it.
But they keep spinning in my head. So, first of all, if you are an ignorant sexist this is likely not a good blog for you to read. Let’s just start with that. But, onward…
- A man cannot make statements about his daughter’s sex appeal without, at very least, raising eyebrows. Joking or not. Someone with less money would have been investigated by Social Services. The statement, made publically, is the epitome of sexism and sexual harassment. And if you don’t think it is, reassess your values. Now.
- Again symbolizing the epitome of sexist behavior, one thing all of the negative posts had in common was blaming Hillary for Bill’s infidelities. That’s not how it works. I don’t even understand how it’s an issue. Their marriage was on the rocks; they worked it through. To imply that a woman cannot be a feminist if she remains involved with a man whose fidelity is called into question is to suggest, in a nation in which the divorce rate exceeds fifty percent, is to suggest that feminism does not exist. Just like millions of other couples in this country, they worked it through. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. How dare you reduce her public service to her husband’s affairs! How dare you – Each of you, Trump supporters all – how dare you insinuate anything about Hillary’s ability to serve based on the sexual actions of a man in her life; whilst Mr. Trump cheated on his first wife with his second, then on his second with his third. That’s how sexism, misogyny—and even harassment work: It’s ok for the man, he is showing sexual prowess, the women are at fault… How dare you! It is not a political talking point. Again, perhaps this isn’t the blog you should be reading. And to those of you who spouted God… Let he who is without sin cast the first stone… But for the sake of clarity, let’s lay out the facts of Mr. Clinton’s affairs:
- Clinton has admitted to two affairs, Gennifer Flowers, and Monika Lewinsky.
- Several women have, indeed, brought suit against President Clinton—all of them had recanted, or they were rebuked by the court system as insubstantial.
- Bill and Hillary have worked it through, and what happens behind their closed door is none of my business. Nor is it any of yours.
- Innuendo does not an argument make. Words like “suspicious,” “crooked,” “dirty dealing,” “shady,” carry no weight. They imply no factual evidence. GET. THE. FACTS. Has she been convicted of a crime? In all of her years of public service? No.
- Lastly, and central to each of these responses was that because Hillary defended a rapist she cannot be a feminist. I would, first of all, like to point out, you have no clue how our legal system works. Did Hillary represent a rapist? Yes, she did. She was his court appointed lawyer. And her obligation to the court, to her client, and to the ethic upon which our legal system is built was to give him the best defense possible. She, by all accounts, begged to be removed from the case. Begged. My heart breaks for the little girl who was raped – and for the young attorney who was forced to defend her attacker. Again, we can discuss why a woman was chosen and the misogynistic nature of our culture, but dead horse and all that. One could infer from this story that Hillary (yes that’s right with 2 ls—of the 11 hate-filled responses, not one had her name spelled right) is a woman who believes in the U.S. judicial system, and is willing to set aside her personal belief to support it: “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you” – it’s a thing in our system. She did the duty required of her. If lawyers simply refused this part of their obligation, our legal systems would be in shambles. It is because of this very principle that I am not a lawyer–I chose rhetoric over law, because it is a standard to which I was afraid I could not hold myself–and it is a requirement of the job. So just stop!
And yes, I researched the quotes made about, and by, Mr. Trump—and limited them to those which were clearly substantiated. You may choose an alternative narrative to mine – but you may not spew it here. I’ll not be called a c*unt, a bitch, or anything else on my blog. I’ll not publish uninformed opinions by anyone. Is that fair? Maybe not, but if you want to assert rhetoric based on prevarication rather than fact—and then support it with vitriol, you’ll not do it here. I’ll not descend into a pissing contest with small-handed individuals.
It has been said before, to me, don’t read the comments!