Dear Hillary Clinton,
I think you are a benevolent, insidious, sexualist, sexist racist. I mean that in the nicest of ways. In fact, based upon your own definitions, I think that might be a compliment to you. I am not even sure anymore because it all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
You said you want to be president of the United States because you are a woman. You said it “is time” for a woman president. Many of your ilk voted for Obama because he is black, and it “was time” for a black president.
You say you are a feminist, so I wonder if you read the new “study” that says that there are two types of sexism, “hostile” and “benevolent.” Benevolent sexism is far more insidious, according to recent research, because it is warm and inviting. Benevolent sexism pulls women in by being nice – doing things like opening a door, or offering a jacket if a woman is shivering. But if a man offers his jacket when a woman is shivering, that alone is “sexist,” because to do so is to assume that a woman is colder than a man and, therefore, the weaker sex. Or something.
See, I am an admitted sexist because I see it like this: Women are the weaker sex, at least physically. Women are more likely than men to be cold, because the average woman weighs far less than the average man. The average woman cannot pass the same physical rigors as men. Men and women are different. I don’t think that women need to be men to be equal. But it doesn’t matter what I think because one thing is sure: Women are not men. Women can’t be men. It doesn’t matter how you power dress, how tall your heels, how boxy your pantsuit, or how much you demand that people lie for you – short of radical surgery, you cannot be a man if you are a woman.
So which is it to you, Madame Secretary? Are you sweetly suggesting, like the benevolent sexist would, that women are inferior politicians, and that a woman should be elected based on her gender? Or do you believe that women should have an equal shot (as they already do) at running, and voters should choose the best candidate?
And if voting based on gender is insidious, benevolent sexism, isn’t voting for Obama to be the first black president insidious, benevolent racism?
You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe women are inferior, or you believe in everyone having an equal shot regardless of gender.
And you also can’t be intellectually serious when you use your gender as an excuse to deflect responsibility.
You didn’t want other people to have access to your email in your official capacity as secretary of state, so you set up your own server. Then you scrubbed it like a crime scene while claiming you were open and transparent. You claimed you only really deleted private emails about your daughter’s wedding plans or your yoga class routines, suggesting special deference be paid to your typically female privacy concerns. Most men I know who work out regularly would be secretly proud to have these facts “exposed.” For you, if anyone ever questions you, you say it is because you are a woman.
As many have pointed out, you claimed you can’t manage two cell devices, or program a single device to manage two email addresses, but you want us to believe you have the competence to take the reins of our country?
If you were honest, you would admit the simple math that says your words and actions don’t add up. But most feminists’ words and actions don’t add up, so maybe lying doesn’t bother you. I mean, the very word “feminist” is a lie. As my co-authors, Ann Marie Murrell, Morgan Brittany and I point out in our bestselling book, “What Women Really Want,” there is nothing feminine about feminism. In fact, it would be more honest if you called it sexualism. Feminism has actually accomplished little other than sexualizing women, and reducing them to the sum total of their body parts. Is that what you all meant to do?
You and your sexualists whine for free stuff for women and then claim women are strong and independent. Why do strong, independent people need free stuff?
You claim women are just as smart as men, but then demand quotas in the workplace. How will women ever know if they can compete, when employers are forced to hire and promote them over men? That proves nothing except base incompetence. And then the women who are successful and could compete will always live under a cloud of question because success will never be a measure of competence, but rather a result of quotas, an insidious plight so many successful blacks have to endure. That isn’t equality.
You ask for respect and then beg for free birth control and abortion, thereby admitting a total lack of self-control. How can a society respect a gender that can’t even control its most base urges?
You ask for rights to your own body, but then you advocate for the stripping of the rights of baby women to their own bodies. How can a society empathize with someone who wants to kill for convenience and call it a choice? That doesn’t leave a lot of choice for the pre-born woman, does it?
You can’t scream for privilege because you are a woman, and then turn around and scream that when others notice you are a woman, that is somehow sexist.
You’re not honest. You are lying to yourself and to the American public you are asking to elect you as president. Maybe that’s the reason, in 2012, 56 percent of women voted for Obama, but in 2014, 56 percent of women switched and voted for the Republican majority you have now in Congress.
See, I may be a sexist by your definition, but I think women are smart, and they’re waking up! I think women are beginning to understand that they aren’t men, they can compete and they are more than the sum of their body parts. I think women are starting to realize that sexualists like you have treated them like “useful idiots” whose votes are for sale for $10 in free birth control. I think women are discovering that equal doesn’t mean same, and hairy armpit feminists are anything but feminine. I think women are beginning to realize that the issues you call “social issues” aren’t social at all, but are fiscal. (Hello? Approximately $1.5 million per day goes to abortion. That’s a fiscal issue, not a social one.)
I think women are truly liberating, for the first time in history, but we probably have a different definition of the word “liberty,” too. Liberation, after all, means freedom from big government. I bet you hope they don’t figure that one out, too. That could be tragic for your run for president because you are a woman.
But look at it this way, Hil: If you don’t become president, you can always go back to standing by your man, or baking cookies! Oh, wait …
