X Close

For Clinton feminists, not all women are equal Female liberation has been captured by a wealthy elite

Women are being abolished in the name of freedom (Photo by Andrew Theodorakis-Pool/Getty Images)

Women are being abolished in the name of freedom (Photo by Andrew Theodorakis-Pool/Getty Images)


January 28, 2021   6 mins

I can still remember the first time my older brother beat me in an arm wrestle. We’re only 17 months apart and shared everything as children – from Lego to imaginary worlds, as well a degree of (usually affectionate) casual violence. Until we both hit puberty, I could reliably beat him at arm wrestling.

Then at 11ish and 13ish, we arrived roughly simultaneously at the onset of puberty. Suddenly he was a lot taller than me and, seemingly overnight, noticeably stronger. Any illusions I had about boys and girls being equal in every way died in that moment, along with my title as All-Harrington Arm-Wrestling Champion.

If you’re a woman with a middle-class upbringing and career path, the fact that men are generally stronger than you doesn’t normally make much difference. Chances are you went to a school that discouraged bullying and punished physical violence. You probably now do an office-based job. So why care about arm wrestling?

After all, feminism is, as activist Cheris Kamarae put it, “the radical notion that women are human beings”: that means believing men and women are equal, sexism is bad, and being able to vote is good. What’s not to like?

If you’re such a woman, you were probably delighted to see Kamala Harris elected as Vice-President of the United States last week. Harris broke new ground for diversity and equality, not just as the first female Vice-President, but as the first black and South Asian one, too. Sure enough, the magazine of the European Parliament, a reliable barometer of bland liberal orthdoxy, hailed Harris’ election as “a remarkable day for democracy and women”.

During her victory speech, Harris herself rejoiced that every little girl watching now “sees that this is a country of possibilities”. She gave a stirring message to “children of our country regardless of your gender”, urging them to “dream with ambition, lead with conviction and see yourselves in a way that others may not simply because they’ve never seen it before”. And while it looks as though it just casually strolled into Harris’ speech as a polite euphemism for the word “sex”, the word “gender” is central to the brand of individualist feminism she now embodies.

Feminists have long argued that “gender” and “sex” are different. Gender encompasses the stereotypes and social expectations governing men and women, while sex is the biological stuff: dangly bits, gestation, hormones and so on. According to this narrative, men and women are basically the same apart from those minor physical details, and it’s mostly ingrained sexist stereotypes that keep women down.

So it’s become a standard feminist pastime to criticise passive or weak female movie characters: think of Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder in Dr No (1962), whose role mostly comprised wearing a bikini and being rescued from peril. Being depicted along such stereotyped lines, we’re told, normalises women’s sexual objectification, keeps women locked into second-class roles and deters us from seeking top jobs. In recent years, Hollywood has stepped up to its feminist duty by replacing these stock roles with strong, active and pugnacious characters, such as Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games or Rey in the new Star Wars movies.

The dowager queen and princess of smashing sexist stereotypes are Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, who in 2019 published The Book of Gutsy Women, an anthology of inspiring female pioneers. The Clintons’ “gutsy women” include, for example, Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman to serve in both US Houses of Congress, and Sally Ride, the first American woman to go into space. Let’s call the stereotype-smashing, freedom-chasing school of women’s liberation “Clinton feminism”: it’s a movement of strong female role models and stories about “the first woman to do [stereotypically masculine thing]”. Again: what’s not to like?

Back in 2016, of course, Clinton feminists were busy cheering on Hillary Clinton herself, who looked like she might pull off one of the most high-profile “first woman” accolades still unclaimed: President of the United States. Only then it turned out that the new President would not only be another man but – worse – a man whose most famous remark on the subject of women was how he liked to “grab ‘em by the pussy”.

In response to this affront, millions of angry women donned knitted pink “pussy” hats and took to the streets in protest. And the demographic make-up of these marchers reveals something that is routinely swept under the carpet by Clinton feminism: social class. According to one survey, 43% of marchers earned above $75,000 per year – despite only 16% of Americans of either sex earning that amount or more. Meanwhile, 52% were graduates, compared to 35% of American women.

But this wasn’t just some freak of the Women’s March. When it comes to embracing feminism, there’s a well-established gap between working and middle-class women on both sides of the pond. One UK poll from 2018 showed that 31% of middle-class women think of themselves as feminists – a figure which dropped to a mere 20% among working-class women. And the numbers are broadly the same across the US; 16% of women educated to high school level identify themselves as feminist compared to 26% of graduate women. Why is that? Surely feminist liberation and equal opportunities are for all women? Well, kind of. When you look a little closer, it becomes clear that the Clinton feminism of “gender” doesn’t just sweep class under the carpet (or, perhaps, asks the cleaner to do so). It also hides what ‘gender’ refers to: sex.

The relation between class and sex becomes clearer when you remember that chasing workplace equality gets steadily easier the less physical a job is. It’s one thing to demand an equal right to earn hundreds of thousands a year as a lawyer, but there’s no feminist campaign for an equal right to become bin men. And everyone knows why. It’s because waste collection is arduous work, and males are – as I learned aged 11 – almost always stronger than females.

Gruellingly physical jobs are just less appealing, too. You’re bound to fight harder for a crack at the jobs traditionally done by men in your social class if those jobs have titles like “lawyer” rather than “sewage worker” or “bin man”. And even for lawyers, Clinton feminism can only ignore sex so far: what we call the “gender pay gap” is mostly an effect of the brutal fact that smashing the glass ceiling is difficult to combine with having babies. Although this is also easier if you’re rich, because along with doing non-physical jobs wealthy women can subcontract the work of raising babies  – and even, for some, gestating them. Seen from this perspective, the shortfall in working-class women identifying as “feminist” seems justified.

Because inasmuch as it refers to smashing stereotypes and celebrating CEOs and Vice-Presidents, at least in its mainstream usage, the word “feminism” has been colonised by the class interests of a wealthy elite. This minority of women have comprehensively liberated themselves from the constraints of female biology – whether it women’s relative physical weakness or the time constraints imposed by motherhood – and have achieved this at least in part on the backs of poorer women. That is, under Clinton feminism, the richer a woman is, the freer she is.

And it doesn’t stop there. Having freed wealthy women from their own biology, Clinton feminism has set its sights on abolishing biology for everyone – including those women still affected by it. On his inauguration day, Biden signed an executive order obliging federally funded institutions to interpret “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity” in the category “sex”. In other words, it’s now forbidden to discriminate against a woman for being male, if that male identifies as a woman.

From a Clinton feminist point of view, this is self-evidently feminist progress. It’s part of the great feminist project of ending all sexist discrimination – up to and including discrimination against people who identify as women, for not being biologically female.

In a way, this is understandable. Katniss Everdeen and her ilk gave a generation of women the impression that men and women are broadly physically similar. And the more middle-class you are, the less opportunity you have to revise that view. If your understanding of male and female physical capabilities was shaped not by family members hauling bins for a living, but high-kicking action movie heroines, the idea of anyone’s choices being limited by something so trivial as “sex assigned at birth” just looks like the kind of bigotry feminism has been fighting since forever.

So an edict that forbids schools from excluding male competitors from all-female athletic competitions, provided they identify as female, may, as the Guardian put it, “offer hope for young trans athletes”. But it also abolishes at the stroke of a Clinton-feminist pen any possibility of fair sporting competition for girls and women. Meanwhile, according to radical feminist campaign group WoLF, it could also end any legal standing for sex segregation in domestic violence shelters or prisons.

This all leaves American supporters of women’s rights in a bit of a bind. Trump may have grabbed ‘em by the pussy, and bragged about it in a repulsive way. But is it really better to be governed by an administration that lacks even The Donald’s (apparent literal) grasp of female anatomy? This probably depends how you look at it.

For just as the perks of Clinton feminism trickle up the class hierarchy, its downsides sink to the bottom. It won’t be Clinton feminists who watch the athletic scholarship that was their only prospect of college funding be swept away by someone who went through male puberty. And it won’t be the Clinton feminists who get locked in prisons that are now effectively mixed-sex.

All but the wealthiest women know that you can’t just legislate biology out of existence. As the losses and indignities resulting from the Clinton feminist effort to do so multiply, outrage will build as well. I suspect we’ll see a feminist mutiny before long – and not the nice polite feminism of women who earn more than $75,000 a year. And I don’t think it will be directed at the patriarchy. It’ll be directed at the selfish elite who stole the women’s movement to feather their own nests, then tried to abolish females in the name of freedom.


Mary Harrington is a contributing editor at UnHerd.

moveincircles

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

260 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

Smashing the glass ceiling is “also easier if you’re rich, because along with doing non-physical jobs wealthy women can subcontract the work of raising babies”.
Feminism seems more about reducing social mobility amongst poorer women and ensuring the position of high status women than equal rights. This is likely why the 1000s of working class women abused by Asian grooming gangs were of no interest to them. The pattern of wokeness tends to be thus.

Julian Hartley
Julian Hartley
3 years ago

Indeed, a lot of identity politics can be seen similarly: a way to further the interests of the ruling classes and to harm the weak.

Elizabeth Cronin
Elizabeth Cronin
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian Hartley

well stated

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian Hartley

The ability to break rules, stretch facts, pervert ideas, act with no morals – all for personal gain is why they’re the ruling class.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian Hartley

Yes, and with a shrinking middle class in the West and a growing middle class in the East, this is the underlying cause of the Culture War; it’s a competition for status in a narrowing place as many are squeezed downwards. The BLM and Capitol riots are merely the first physically violent expressions of this war. Look to the Chinese Cultural Revolution for a model of how it could go. The US Constitution and the maintenance of democracy are the bulwarks against it. They are going to be tested like never before during Biden’s rein.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago

“it’s a competition for status in a narrowing place as many are squeezed downwards.”

Interesting post.

And as some are squeezed downwards we can expect them to cling to woke values in an attempt to continue to identify upwards. And, for a time at least, to vote against their interests rather than admit what has happened to them.

“At least we still drink milk out of a jug” syndrome.

Julian Hartley
Julian Hartley
3 years ago

What a brilliant comment. You have put your finger on the precise point around which the social, political, and economic issues of our day pivot. This ‘squeeze’, as the rest of the world grows to become as developed, productive and greedy as the West was in its ~70 year post-WWII golden age, will define our century.

And the issue of cultural totalitarianism and identity politics, which sometimes appears to be the only issue at all, is just one among many of the results of the great realignment of wealth and status.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago

That is a fascinating observation. For whatever reason I’ve thinking about apartheid, its causes and effects, a lot lately.

I was going to comment on Ralph Leonard’s article which mentioned the damage done by Cecil Rhodes, for his actions led directly to apartheid. Now your post has made the connection really pop out.

After the British defeated the Boer republics in 1902, Afrikaners felt exactly that kind of downward squeeze, as if the British colonial power was squeezing them into an underclass.

That led to various political aberrations such as communist support for the 1922 miners’ strike in opposition to non-white people being allowed to do semi-skilled jobs.
Apartheid was in many ways a response to the perceived downward squeeze – creating legal barriers which ensured a hard floor below which whites could not be squeezed, and eliminated the possibility of upward mobility for non-whites.

Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark H

An interesting historical comparison. I don’t know about that particular struggle but I’d say generally the competition for status is more ferocious than the struggle for wealth. Marx said something along the lines of history is the clash of social classes. He probably had a point. Losing status makes people vulnerable to the worst atrocities humanity is capable of inflicting. People will fight tooth and nail to maintain it.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago

And demagogues exploit that fear of losing status, of disappearing into the underclass – magnifying it and then using it to desensitize people to the suffering of others. (cf Nazi Germany).
Although that seems to be rare among the English – from early George Orwell of the lower-upper-middle class to Adrian Mole, the English response seems to be inward rather than outward.

Scott Norman Rosenthal
Scott Norman Rosenthal
3 years ago

While Biden, etc., gloat.

Scott Norman Rosenthal
Scott Norman Rosenthal
3 years ago
Reply to  Julian Hartley

“Divide and conquer” is an aspect.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

Feminism seems more about reducing social mobility amongst poorer women and ensuring the position of high status women than equal rights.
that seems to be the case with all of the social justice isms. It’s interesting that while people were being forced to say “black lives matter,” a few dozen black lives were violently ended and they did not appear to matter at all.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

“It won’t be Clinton feminists who watch the athletic scholarship that was their only prospect of college funding be swept away by someone who went through male puberty”. This paragraph just about sums in a few words the whole trans activist situation up.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago

An excellent article. Quite enjoyed the bit “But is it really better to be governed by an administration that lacks
even The Donald’s (apparent literal) grasp of female anatomy?”

Men have not been immune to this either, the average man apparently has privillage – one that shows itself very poorly in terms of education, health, judicial treatment, violent crime etc. It appears to most of us that this is just deflection by the tiny number of genuinely privillaged men.

The Woke left’s view on identity is mind bendingly warped to say the least. A man can become a woman or vice versa with ease, it’s all a ‘social construct’. The concept of race is now revered, where as it really is a social construct.

The Left is fast heading down a very dark hole. Again.

CL van Beek
CL van Beek
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

You even can be binary, a woman one day, a men next. But you cannot play Cleopatra in a movie if you are from Israel, or play a gay character when you are straight.
This is all off course, a very logical way thinking, if you are woke.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

The dowager queen and princess of smashing sexist stereotypes are Hillary and Chelsea Clinton,
Really? One rode her husband’s coattails to fame and the other was born into it. Is it possible to be any more stereotypical than this pair? And while Harris broke some checkblock barriers, she was also soundly rejected by her own party during the primaries, winning not a single delegate.

Feminism faces an existential crisis; the trans movement is doing more to dismiss every argument made feminists than anything the “patriarchy” or some other malevolent force could do. When being a woman is a social construct instead of a biological reality, the rest falls by the wayside.

Lydia R
Lydia R
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

It won’t be Hillary or AOC who end up sharing with men in a prison or shelter or have a trans nurse conduct an intimate examination.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

Katniss Everdeen and her ilk gave a generation of women the impression that men and women are broadly physically similar.

One of the reasons I’ve always thought it would be useful for girls to be taught self-defence at school is that the experience would relieve them of this dangerous and grossly foolish misapprehension.

As a younger man I did karate for about five years. This entailed having fights with lots of women. I was of average build and like all other such young men, I found that when sparring with even an adult woman, it wasn’t really necessary to block or evade any kicks or punches she aimed at you. She could bruise your face, but it didn’t hurt much and she stood nil chance of knocking you over. You could just ignore any blows she landed. Her belt being black and yours being orange or green or whatever made no difference; a woman couldn’t defeat a man in a fight.

A female of 30 or so did not seem to me to be any physically stronger than one about 12 or 14 years of age.

Noted farcical episodes such as thumping defeats of national women’s soccer sides by teams of 15-year-old boys (I can’t link, but search for FC Dallas and U.S. Women’s National Team, or Matildas and Newcastle Jets) rather bear this out. Women are segregated in most sport for a good reason: if they weren’t, they’d never win anything.

Women can defend themselves successfully against attack by a male, but to do so usually requires that they escalate the violence level very high, very fast, and be willing reflexively to inflict serious, perhaps permanent harm. Like most of us they’re mentally and physically inequipped to do this unless schooled to do so. If they are, they then stand a better chance than a man who’s attacked, because if he responds violently and effectively to an assault, he’ll be the one who gets prosecuted.

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

That is why I do not want my daughters to ever have to go to war.

Forget Hollywood

Trained or not, they would not last 30 seconds in a proper fight with an average 20 to 40 year old man.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  James Rowlands

That is why I do not want my daughters to ever have to go to war.

I’m not sure there’s all that much hand-to-hand combat in war these days.

In most modern combat engagements a well trained woman soldier who can shoot accurately and has good stamina wouldn’t be outclassed by a man.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

In a limited set of circumstances, I’d suggest. If she were firing a squad weapon from a sheltered position perhaps. But could a woman do the Royal Marine Commando “30-miler” – a trek of that distance in full kit including rifle, to be completed in 8 hours? Or even the Paras’ version – 20 miles in 4 hours 10 minutes? And shoot straight afterwards? I doubt it; her kit’s going to weigh the same as everyone else’s.

Thomas Noneof
Thomas Noneof
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

Pete,

That is absolutely not true:

https://www.marinecorpstime

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

I completely agree. I too have done martial arts, and have the same experience. Younger women with high levels of skill can get round your defences, especially if you are still training into your 40s or 50s. But that is sport, not real fighting. She scores points, and you are both limiting your aggression. if both side just let loose, she’d likely be injured and fast.

I have been assaulted by women, twice. In both cases, I defended myself with minimal force, and fortunately had the training – and presence of mind – to ensure I didn’t hurt my attacker, as I knew that it would be me, not the women attackers, who faced legal trouble.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blow

I’ve always thought that fight scenes in movies and sex scenes in movies are about equally realistic. In both cases you can see what’s supposed to be happening, but neither type of scuffle starts, proceeds or concludes like that in real life.

An 8-stone woman can’t win a fight against a 12-stone man any more than that man can win a fight against an 18-stone man. In fact, his chances in the second fight are slightly better than hers in the first, because even though the adversary is 50% bigger in each case, he’s at least got similar testosterone.

Unfortunately people believe Hollywood history, and so probably quite a few also believe its nonsense about fights.

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Because it is lockdown, I have wasted a good bit of time on garbage TV. I succumbed to “Designated Survivor” on Netflix; schlocky TV melodrama.

One of the main characters is a skinny young woman (about 90lbs wet) who frequently beats up 200lb guys – soldiers, and the like. It is quite funny, really.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

An 8-stone woman can’t win a fight against a 12-stone man any more than that man can win a fight against an 18-stone man.

I think that’s mostly true but, as the OP pointed out, “going nuclear” right at the outset – knowing what parts of the body to focus on and how to inflict maximum damage in the minimum time – gives weaker men and weaker women a chance against heavier, stronger opponents. Especially if they have been trained in how to improvise weapons.

As soon as the opportunity for an expected and decapacitating first strike is past, though, the stronger, heavier combatant wins.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

Agreed. If it turns into a fight, the smaller fighter is toast – whatever Hollywood says.

Mary Jones
Mary Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

I studied martial arts for a few years so that I would, hopefully, have a chance if I was fast and clever, to escape if attacked. I have absolutely no illusions about this significant difference. And it borders on abuse to keep teaching young girls that they can best a grown male attacker.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Mary Jones

And the motive for the nonsense appears, bizarrely, to be for them and the film-makers to feel good about themselves by believing in something that’s not true.

M Spahn
M Spahn
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

It’s amazing how many people simply no longer understand that men are considerably stronger and faster than women. Literally no longer understand this basic reality.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago

During her victory speech, Harris herself rejoiced that every little girl watching now “sees that this is a country of possibilities”.

Yeah, just think of the possibilities if you launch your political career by sleeping with a married man more than twice your age.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Harvey

Unnecessary, nasty and sexist.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

And entirely true.

Calling someone out for extremely bad behaviour is not sexist. Double standards are.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Harvey

And that’s the thing. Mark objects to this being brought up not because it isn’t true, but because it is.

Holding minorities to a lower standard because they are minorities does no favours, either to them or to their passengers on the airliner they thereby get to fly.

Joe Francis
Joe Francis
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I don’t think it’s sexist at all. Nasty it may be, but that in itself doesn’t make it unnecessary. When Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984, it may well have been a stunt to energize the Democrats to fight an almost unwinnable race against Reagan, but he at least had the grace to claim, “I went looking for the best man for the job and I found her”. Biden didn’t even make a pretence of of denying Harris’s tokenism. When asked who his running mate would be, he flat out said that whoever it was, they would be black and a woman.

And that was it. Those were the qualifications. It didn’t matter that Harris had the crookedest record in America with regard to her career as a prosecutor. It didn’t matter that she’d been beaten off the stage in the Democratic debates by Tulsi Gabbard. It didn’t matter that she’s incapable of answering any kind of complex question with anything other than a highly practiced, sneering laugh. She’s black and a woman. That’ll do. What kind of a role model is that? Do those facts give her a free pass on her behaviour heretofore, behaviour which she has never even denied, let alone apologized for?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Francis

That’s a different argument than saying she got the job by sleeping with someone.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

She was making about a 100k dollars a year as a know-nothing 20 year old by sitting on state government boards to which she was appointed by her “boyfriend” Willie Brown.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Harvey

Do you have a reliable source for information on this? I’m involved in a related discussion on The Conversation.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

I lived in Berkeley and San Francisco in the 90s and 00s.

This was common knowledge, often repeated in the press.

Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley
Ian MacArthur
Ian MacArthur
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Harvey

She was given two, very highly paid, sinecures by him.

John Nutkins
John Nutkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Francis

Well said.

Micheal Thompson
Micheal Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Francis

Sorry but I guess Joe has answered your questions !

Ian MacArthur
Ian MacArthur
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Francis

She’s an entitled, privileged Indian Brahmin, with a dash of Jamaican slave owner.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Though apparently true.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

“Unnecessary, nasty and sexist”

Perhaps – but perhaps we need an antidote to the happy clappy version of political ambition.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Willie Brown was the placeman for a small number of very wealthy Republican families in San Francisco who funded him to keep their taxes low (taxes for the middle class to pay for a public sector gravy train were just fine). The man is/was the complete anti thesis of what Progressives claimed to represent. Somehow, in his 20 years in power, in never did get around to doing something about Prop. 13. Odd, that, don’t you think?

Jad Adams
Jad Adams
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Harvey

Proposition 13 limits the taxation on houses to 1% of their value. It was brought in for various reasons but the most important was that older people in California, who had bought houses when they were in full-time employment, were suffering crippling property taxes imposed by a reckless administration which threatened their security in a home in which they had lived for many years. What ‘something’ Willie Brown might have ‘done’ about that as Speaker of the California state legislature or mayor of San Francisco is not clear to me, but I am glad for the sake of Californians that the limit on home taxation remains.

Andrew Harvey
Andrew Harvey
3 years ago
Reply to  Jad Adams

Prop 13 also covers commercial property. The argument that it protects little old ladies in their family home is absurd. It is a massive give-away to some of the wealthiest people in the state.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

You missed out “untrue”. Does that mean it’s not?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But true

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

How is it sexist? It is totally true, just as the Dems summarily rejecting Harris’ campaign in the primaries is true.

Walter Brigham
Walter Brigham
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Necessary because the Democrat narrative is they ALWAYS take the high road. Lies, corruption, nepotism are NEVER acknowledged. It is considered bad taste to point out Hilary’s numerous lies. Obama claims without challenge from the MSM that his administration was scandal free, illegal FISA warrants and unmasking by White House members not withstanding.

Ian MacArthur
Ian MacArthur
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

That’s Harris described to a T.

Mary Jones
Mary Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

It was no more sexist than the article’s quote of Trump’s locker room comment. That type of language has been around for years, by men and women and it is crude and unnecessary. But Harris’ method of approaching the glass ceiling is in a different class.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago

I’m loath to say this. But. Hillary Clinton got to where she nearly got because of her bloke, Bill Clinton. Check the surname. Maggie Thatcher got to where she got because she was Maggie Thatcher.

icyield
icyield
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

And Maggie did not make it in to the ranks of the “gutsy women”!

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago

The “election” of K Harris “a remarkable day for democracy and women”.

Truly remarkable….

What was it 2% of Democrats voted for her to become the presidential candidate?

As for the “democratic” election…. Yeah right!

lewisjclark25
lewisjclark25
3 years ago

Anyone remember Clinton’s campaign messaging in 2016? ‘I’m With Her’ and all that?

A lot of that seemed, to me at least, to be about helping her – the great Hillary – to shatter that highest of glass ceilings.

All very well, but working class and lower middle class women and men could have been forgiven for responding ‘oh yeah? What are you going to do for us?!’

Trump’s messaging – ‘MAGA’ – at least contained some promise that he would address the legitimate concerns of those who were not included by the great neo-liberal boom.

I know – talk is cheap, and it’s possible that a Clinton presidency would have benefited those voters more than the Trump presidency did in reality. But Trump’s secret weapon was how he was able to tap into these perceptions that the elites did not care about the rest of the population. And often in electoral politics, perception is reality.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  lewisjclark25

Almost everything in this discussion has been about class. An interesting development since idpol was supposed to keep that from happening.

John K
John K
3 years ago

One version of feminism (not all, before anyone piles in) has always been replacing or at least emulating the privilege of upper middle class men with that of upper middle class women.

The trick has therefore been distinguishing between those who genuinely believe all people should be treated fairly and given similar opportunity regardless of their “dangly bits” or the shade of their epidermis – among whose numbers I like to include myself – and those who use feminism (and race politics) as a lever for personal advancement or partisan political lobbying.

The latter group is definitely in the ascendancy right now, and I’m not optimistic for the future.

Al Tinonint
Al Tinonint
3 years ago
Reply to  John K

Indeed, Emmeline Pankhurst and her Suffragettes positively lobbied against extending the vote to both working class males and working class females.

She did so, despite having her Suffragettes hand white feathers to many of those working class males who did not have the vote, but whose deprivation resulted in them being unfit to fight.

The Suffragettes exhorted them to go out and prepare to die to defend their own far more privileged livestyles.

.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

Nobody – male or female – who knows anything about Kamala Harris was happy to see her become VP. If only it could have been Tulsi Gabbard instead, who is vastly superior both intellectually and morally. (Harris is utterly devoid of morality).

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

If Harris is “devoid of morality” she ha all the attributes to be president.

Dorothy Slater
Dorothy Slater
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Not only are many of us not happy to see Harris as VP – we are scared to death that Biden will go to his eternal reward and she will be President. The voices that screamed for 4 years about how unqualified Trump was for the office – which he clearly was – are silent .No cries from the Woke as to how clearly Harris is as well . Can you imagine having to hear her giggle at every question during a press conference. Oh the horror!!!!!!

Greg Maland
Greg Maland
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

I find Tulsi Gabbard to be very admirable, and if the world was a better place, she would be president now. She’s probably too principled and independent to be viable as a politician, but I’m hopeful that she, or someone like her, gets a real chance somewhere down the line, possibly as a third party candidate.

Lydia R
Lydia R
3 years ago

You nailed it! As Joan Rivers put it: behind every strong woman is another woman cleaning her floors.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Lydia R

Lol. Joan Rivers is brilliant.

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago

No mention of the president that went far beyond talking about “grabbing”, which exposes the strange compulsion of so many of these essayists to include a gratuitous Trump dig. I cannot recall millions of women marching in protest of Hillary’s husband-a fact that indicates the underlying political motives of these “feminists”. I worked in the entertainment industry for a while, and well remember guys talking about how women (“groupies” et al) would throw themselves at them-offering up whatever they wanted…The secret recording of Trump talking with a guy on a bus about this subject reminded me of all this, as did Trump’s expressed amazement at this type of behavior-a reaction that I have seen and heard from others. Somehow it always ends up being portrayed as something that he did, rather than said…meanwhile, we have actual perpetrators in Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, but they are of the correct political persuasion, and so rarely mentioned, if ever. Hillary was and is an enabler of a serial “grabber”, and is not a feminist-she is a “Hillaryist”, and most of the pink hat marchers were and are primarily political in motivation-no matter how they dress it up in woke-speak.

ChrisK Shaw
ChrisK Shaw
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

Stephen, thanks, I almost couldn’t read the article due to that old trope. His comment was that he couldn’t believe that if you were famous “they let you grab them by the p***y”. Not claiming do have done it nor advocating that one ought! In fact a critique of what some poorly reared women allow. And an example of what could have happened in the Kamala Harris-Brown relationship. He probably recognized immature Harris for one of those women and followed through. Btw, you missed Biden from your list of grabby men.

Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

The groupie phenomena is so weird, but it’s true some women behave that way. And it enables a lot of inappropriate male behaviour, and gives some of those men the impression that women really are ok with things like p***y-grabbing – when in reality it’s very much a subset.

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago

Feminism was always about improving the lot of the already comfortable – see Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
3 years ago

“…men and women are basically the same apart from those minor physical
details, and it’s mostly ingrained sexist stereotypes that keep women
down.”

People with knowledge, and a clear and open mind, always knew this was not true.

The sex [insert term here] gaps (that is, gaps between men and women according to some metric or other) are an interesting mechanism to explore people’s numeracy and biases. First, if they use the term “gender pay gap” it is a bit of a clue. The “gender pay gap” is a methodological mess. Moreover, how often have you ever seen (for example) anyone bleating in the oh-so-utterly-tedious Guardian whining (sorry, “opinion”) pages about any of these sex gaps:

M/F ratio in bricklaying jobs.
M/F ratio in industrial deaths or accidents.
M/F ratio in jobs created, revenue generated, companies built and sold, patents filed.
M/F ratio in imprisonment rate
M/F ratio in being murdered

I can tell you: never.

In a nutshell, why are people so utterly focussed on women in the boardroom, and not women on the construction site?

Finally, who constructed that dimwitted, divisive and crass “gender pay gap” number? Why is it tolerated, given the fictions in perpetrates?

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blow

Applications to Oxford.
English literature. Four women for each man.
Computer studies. Three and a half men for each woman.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

The former is taken for granted while the latter is cause for manufactured navel gazing and recruiting campaigns.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

English literature. Four women for each man.

When I studied English Lit in the 90s I was the only guy in the class. That, along with being a bar manager, completely cured the chronic shyness I suffered with girls during my teenage years. I ruined it all by asking my then-girlfriend to move in with me.

Lydia R
Lydia R
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

Ssshhh.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

Last week in a discussion about Geoffrey Chaucer I weighed in with a reasonable-ish argument and got told that I needed to read more novels. Presumably this meant that the novels would help me to understand what was really going on in life.

ian.walker12
ian.walker12
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

Jordan Peterson discusses this at some length using Sweden as an example. Having pursued equality of opportunity (a good thing) for decades the ‘desired’ equality of outcome fails. Why? Well surprise surprise men and women have different interests, so women on average still prefer people orientated jobs, men technology. There are still women in technology jobs and vice versa but the idea that women would use the new opportunities to become engineers etc. in equal numbers to men didn’t happen.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blow

Well said. And for as long as feminism (of all kinds) is about getting women into boardrooms, deriding motherhood and bleating about a phoney “gender pay gap” while at the same time ignoring or downplaying the much more serious and troubling sex gaps you list above I want nothing whatsoever to do with it.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago

I suspect we’ll see a feminist mutiny before long ““ and not the nice polite feminism of women who earn more than $75,000 a year.

Or perhaps we’ll all just realise that social class matters so much more.

Rachel Lee
Rachel Lee
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

There is a feminist mutiny happening led in the UK by for example: https://fairplayforwomen.com/, https://womansplaceuk.org/, https://www.transgendertren…, https://www.transwidows.com/, https://lgballiance.org.uk/. Personally I was disgusted when Green Party and LibDem MSPs refused to vote in favour of the Lamont Amendment to allow rape and sex abuse survivors to choose the sex of the person examining them after the attack. (https://www.thenational.sco…. But gender ideology is colonising not just the UK and US, it’s everywhere – Australia, Canada, Spain, Finland, Japan… The fallout of this doctrine is not only that shuts down debate (except places like UnHerd!) and removes female only spaces (sports, prisons etc.), but is also witnessed in the growing number of male and female de-transitioners who have to live with the mental and physical impact of what they have done to themselves.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Rachel Lee

the Lamont Amendment to allow rape and sex abuse survivors to choose the sex of the person examining them after the attack.

Surely in woke orthodoxy it’s “the person examining them after the attack” who gets “to choose the sex of the person examining them after the attack”?

If an assault victim makes a sexist gendered demand to be examined by a woman, at best all the victim is entitled to is to be examined by someone who identifies as a woman for the duration of that examination.

This would include literally anybody.

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
3 years ago
Reply to  Rachel Lee

Gender madness is a Western issue, its basis is wealth and a value free society.

It will die with the West when the money disappears. Asia and the ex communist countries remember what it was like to live in a poor valueless society and they are appalled and want nothing to do with it.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
3 years ago

Great article. I’ve long suspected that to believe in gender as a social construct you really have to have grown up without brothers.

Eric Sheldon
Eric Sheldon
3 years ago

And have no children of your own.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago

Saying that Kamala Harris was elected is a stretch. She herself dropped out of the race for the Democrat nomination before she could be humiliated in her own state. When Biden added her to the ticket, opinion polls showed no benefit to Biden. Unsurprising given how unpopular she is with African-Americans due to her record of incarcerating so many of them for drug possession before joking about smoking spliffs when she hung out with the cool kids on The Breakfast Club. Her vacuity and lack of morality was shown by her then withdrawing the accusations of racism she had made against the man with whom she was now happy to stand on the same ticket. Hopefully, she will have to stand for election before she becomes President instead of Biden just handing her the keys to the Oval Office.

Ian MacArthur
Ian MacArthur
3 years ago

She also stated she believed the women that had accused Biden of sexual misconduct.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian MacArthur

Didn’t you hear Kop Kamala explain that that was just a ‘debating point’ and therefore inconsequential?

Hugh Oxford
Hugh Oxford
3 years ago

At the risk of getting Catholic, women were abolished long ago, at least fifty years ago, with the advent of artificial contraception and abortion. The notion that a man can become a woman by force of will or by legal statute can only occur in a fundamentally post-procreative society.

But follow the money: gender ideology is a tool and weapon of the neoliberal global corporations, to confuse and disorientate, to divide and atomise, to disintegrate, demoralise, conquer and exploit.

One hundred different Facebook genders multiplied by a hundred different racial categories multiplied by a hundred other meaningless group identities: a paradox: the true individual dies, but also a bonded humanity dies, and a billion sovereign states are born, defenceless in the face of neoliberal globalist corporate exploitation. No coherent sovereign nations to oppose.

That’s why Trump had to go, of course, and why Biden will be doing what the corporations tell him to do: gender identity, multiculturalism, diversity, etc, etc.

Because the corporations always win.

David C.
David C.
3 years ago

Thomas Frank touched on this topic in his book Listen Liberal, and you expanded on this in a wonderfully personal way. Democrats celebrate women when they become CEOs but not when they hold down minimum wage jobs at Walmart while trying to raise two children. Simply raising the minimum wage greatly helps women and minorities, as they disproportionately hold working class jobs. Trump at least acknowledged problems of the working class, even if he didn’t do anything for them. Dems said “Not everyone deserves a pony.” And blamed Russia for brainwashing them.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  David C.

I read ‘Listen Liberal’ very recently. It is an excellent book.

ChrisK Shaw
ChrisK Shaw
3 years ago
Reply to  David C.

Pre-virus, Trump got many of them a job, which by definition brought self pride back from a long hiatus. And a role model in to many homes. Work is way more than a paycheck.

Linda Brown
Linda Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  David C.

Sounds like the Labour Party in the UK, they’ve all but abandoned their core constituents.

Ian MacArthur
Ian MacArthur
3 years ago
Reply to  David C.

Trump presided over historically low unemployment rates for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women and high school dropouts. Wages for the lowest paid rose at the highest rates.

Peter Kriens
Peter Kriens
3 years ago

Very interesting article, thanks. I especially like the focus on how your class provides you a very different perspective on feminism.

However, if you quote someone, please quote him correctly, even if it is a person like T. Making a misquote a central part of your essay is diminishing an otherwise excellent article.

T. never bragged that he grabbed women by the p***y, he bragged that when you’re famous, women allow you to grab them by the p***y. I.e. the groupie effect. I agree that it is still locker talk but it was a private conversation.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
3 years ago

The feminist mutiny has already started…. in a big way. Plenty females already look with outrage at laws that are being passed.

kaynape
kaynape
3 years ago

Let’s hope

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Examples please?

Adam Huntley
Adam Huntley
3 years ago

That “gutsy women” book was also the one that omitted Margaret Thatcher. It reminded me of the Women’s Hour “powerful” women of the Year which didn’t contain a single woman in Government. I think there is a common denominator somewhere. Can someone help me out?

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
3 years ago
Reply to  Adam Huntley

Wrong kind of women? Only counts as diversity if all have uniform (correct) opinion.

Lydia R
Lydia R
3 years ago
Reply to  Adam Huntley

Also omitted Priti Patel but she has the wrong ideas.

G Matthews
G Matthews
3 years ago

Chelsea Clinton’s first job out of college was a $600,000 a year gig with NBC news. Boy, does she know hardship.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago

Feminists have long argued that “gender” and “sex” are different. Gender encompasses the stereotypes and social expectations governing men and women, while sex is the biological stuff: dangly bits, gestation, hormones and so on.

This is actually a clever piece of sleight of hand since it rules out a priori the possibility that some aspects of male and female behaviour might be rooted in biology. It simply leaves no conceptual space for anything that is neither physical nor socially determined.

Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

I don’t know that it rules it out, but it doesn’t make it an easy discussion. Maybe because often the biology and culture are intertwined and really indivisible, rather than separate things altogether..

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago

Katniss Everdeen and her ilk gave a generation of women the impression that men and women are broadly physically similar.

Greatly aided, of course, by progress in the special effects department.

Walter Lantz
Walter Lantz
3 years ago

Feminist politics is an on-going sh*t show but the author makes a good point that at the end of the day there are always those with enough money to engage in their own bespoke version of feminism and that includes the ability to avoid the trans trap.
The daughters of the elite will be safely ensconced in private schools or sports clubs where they won’t have to worry about arm-wrestling or sharing a bathroom with Robert-A or Stephen-IE while children of the systemically transphobic proletariat will have to endure mandatory gender bias training when they’re not getting their asses kicked on the sports field.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
3 years ago

It is disingenuous to make the argument that women who support the right of women to challenge ‘gender’ stereotypes and do previously ‘male’ jobs also support the ‘transgender’ nonsense. Actually, it is completely the opposite.
What is called here ‘Clinton feminism’; 1970s second wave feminism, rejects ‘gender’ stereotypes in their entirety. The ‘transgender’ ideology embraces and imposes them. Second wave feminism says that a woman can drive a lorry and have a relationship with another woman, as a woman. ‘Gender’ ideology says that she is ‘really’ a man. ‘Gender’ ideology is deeply misogynistic and homophobic. There is nothing of any sort of feminism about it.
And, having spent years working on farms when I was younger, handling livestock in the Northern hills, I often beat men at arm wrestling when I was young. I’m sure that I could beat most 60 year old men now!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

‘Gender’ ideology is deeply misogynistic and homophobic. There is nothing of any sort of feminism about it.
and yet, the self-proclaimed feminists either sit in silence or support it.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Not this one. And not the women from the trade union movement who formed Women’s Place UK or the lesbians who formed LGB Alliance. Not JK Rowling or Julie Bindel or Professor Kathleen Stock or Johann Lamont MSP or Joanna Cherry MSP. Women in the UK are fighting back and most are on the Left and of working class origin.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

and look at how the likes of Rowling or Martina Navratilova are treated for daring to speak malicious truths. I believe a couple of women have lost jobs over such radical thought at “only women get pregnant.”

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

Of course they’re on the left. This is a savage, intra-left internecine feud. Women like those you mention are being subjected to the kind of vicious abuse they have themselves meted out in the past to people on the right,. by people even further off the reservation than they are.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Where I live, a very poor area, women are choosing life without men. Why be reliant on men when the state will pay?. The local police force, when it is not fining people for Covid violations, spends about 90% of its time rushing to ‘domestics’. This means where a women has 2 or 3 kids by different fathers, father 2 wants to see his child but father 1 is standing in the doorway. A fight ensues, the men are dragged away and the ‘poor’ woman is surrounded by Victim Support. But who is the real victim?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

In perverse fashion, that is precisely what LBJ’s Great Society program accomplished, disproportionately harming minorities. A woman who gave birth could receive govt help if the father was not present. Not hard to see how that would play out.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

This sounds like Good Cop vs Bad Cop. You are the good version because yo speak English without hate. Therefore, you are not fit to speak for the cause.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago

“…I’m sure that I could beat most 60 year old men now!”

The honest construction should be 60 yr old female vs 60 yr old male.

Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago
Reply to  robert scheetz

I think it was, I imagine Caroline is probably about 60 given the context of her comments.

I’m doubtful though – certainly to beat other 60 year old male farm workers would be very unlikely, but I think she might be surprised to find that even that a 60 year old office worker would prevail more than expected.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago

OK, but in any event, muscle mass is a function of testosterone. The possession of testes generally favors the balance for males. If Caroline’s level is excessively high she’s an exception.

Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
Meghan Kathleen Jamieson
3 years ago

I think Harrington’s point is that it is the simplistic devision of sex and gender by second wave feminists that led to the kind of Clintonesque feminism she describes. As soon as you create a hard line between them, as if “gender” as it exists in culture is always somehow arbitrarily assigned to sex, sex itself is no longer hinged to the problems of being a woman.

If gender norms, or at least some of them, do have some inherent attachment to sex – say the stereotype that women are less likely to be firefighters – then feminism would have to admit that there may be any number of ways in which women and men will not have the same kinds of roles in even an enlightened society. Part of the discussion within feminism would have to be when this is in fact the case, or whether that might include things impacted by motherhood.

Many feminists have been deeply uncomfortable with that kind of discussion, and I would say extremely aggressive about policing that kind of perspective within feminism – in facts it’s often simply disallowed as conservative or right wing, and therefore “not feminist”.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

To me, it is obvious why many feminists would feel upset about proper conversation – because their feminism is about calling names and hiding behind political slogans. My wife is a real feminist because she can talk to men and women about her thoughts and not come up with stupid thoughts like, “I could beat most 60-year old men at arm wrestling.” Who could take this seriously? But then I am a man so I wouldn’t understand.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

If you don’t understand, ask.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago

But my (female) partner couldn’t buy chainsaw boots in her size. (Women’s six 6 if I emember).

Joe Blow
Joe Blow
3 years ago
Reply to  Theo Hopkins

Hardly reasonable to expect a manufacturer to create a product for which there is almost no demand.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

My dad could beat your dad.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I’ve got a black cat

kennethjamesmoore
kennethjamesmoore
3 years ago

01

Kenneth MacKillop
Kenneth MacKillop
3 years ago

I have to laugh at all of these people who discuss Hillary Clinton as anything other than a thoroughly despicable character. Her ENTIRE career, starting with the early days with the Rose Law firm and spectacular futures trading results (this is a way for bribes to be laundered by lobbyists in finance who take both sides of a trade, and then send the winning side to a bribetaker influence peddler) with Bill as Arkansas governor, through Bill in White House and more recently with Bill making speeches for quid pro quo payments into the so-called “Clinton Foundation” with Hillary in Obama’s Cabinet, Hillary has been a professional influence peddler selling “pay for play” schemes in the most obvious and cynical manner possible since her college years.
Like Obama, an astoundlingly unaccomplished and ignorant man who happens to have mulatto skin color, Hillary’s entire career and favoritism shown by mainstream press and so forth, is based solely upon her sex.
Joe Biden is a career-long boldfaced, unsubtle liar as well — remember when he was caught plagiarizing Neil Kinnock’s entire life story (from an autobiographical speech by Kinnock in the ’80s) while running in the Democrat primary for PotUS in 1988? Then as now, Joe simply denied his blatant public lie for several weeks (“c’mon man ..”) before quietly bowing out of the race when it became clear that he had no chance. Biden does it the old-fashioned way — he simply demands bribes paid to his brother and son and so forth, with big kickbacks to Joe in the mix. Peter Schweitzer devoted an entire chapter (or was it two?) to this in his fairly recent book, in addition to coverage of the Clintons and other corrupt Democrats (but I repeat myself).
All of these disgustingly corrupt and self-centered/interested pol’s are protected by the deep state and the mainstream press. The latter benefits by being fed false stories and propaganda from the deep state and the corrupt pol’s.
There is really nothing at all more to the likes of Barack and Hillary and Joe. Bill Clnton was a more complex and accomplished pol than the others, but he had his wife to manage the laundered bribery business for his entire career starting as AG in Arkansas.
Anyone notice that the Clinton Foundation was shut down within days of Hillary losing in 2016?
These are people to be mocked and ignored. Wake up, people, including those across the pond.

pdrodolf
pdrodolf
3 years ago

Spot on! Being a 58 year old American male I was raised, educated and competed during the Title 9 era. My male colleague and I were just commenting yesterday about just where all the “pink p***y” hatted feminists were now that with a stroke of the pen forty years of progress was undone. For the record both my wife and one of my daughters competed in collegiate sports, what’s to become of women’s collegiate sports in the US now?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  pdrodolf

They will be dominated by biological men.

Signme Uplease
Signme Uplease
3 years ago

Fundamentally, all social injustices are really about class war. Not sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. The oligarchs know how to get and maintain power no matter who they’re oppressing. https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

John Jones
John Jones
3 years ago

The idea that gender is a “social construct” arises from the requirement of feminist dogma that the differences between men and women are an arbitrary imposition by the “patriarchy” rather than a natural consequence of innate psychological differences between the genders.

This is accomplished by a rhetorical sleight of hand: by defining gender only in terms of social markers for gender, it is possible to argue that gender is only social– because that’s how you defined it in the first place.

Instead, we should ask whether the physical differences between the sexes, driven by evolutionary factors, may not also have their counterpart in psychological differences as well. In fact, it would be astounding if there weren’t such innate differences, given the evolutionary necessity for males and females to pursue different mating strategies to enhance their evolutionary success.

This strategy of defining the terms of an argument to suit your conclusion shows up everywhere in radical- left reasoning. The term “systemic sexism”, for example, was deliberately constructed as a means of ensuring that we will never discuss female sexism against men, something that would demonstrate that feminists would accept equality in examining gender prejudice.

But we never will have that discussion, because the term “systemic sexism” is deliberately constructed to argue that men can never be the victims of discrimination, because it is not “systemic”, but simply a result of the prejudice of particular women, not the system. So a man not hired because of his sex is not the victim of sexism, while a woman denied employment because of her gender is.
The Canadian government still advertises for positions open only to women, while Trudeau continues to virtue signal by declaring himself against discrimination based on gender.

All of this, of course, from people who demand an end to double standards.

Zorro Tomorrow
Zorro Tomorrow
3 years ago
Reply to  John Jones

A copy and paste argument for race and homophobia. Heteros and whites must “like” or at least not mention while the opposite is rarely policed. Canada has been leading the PC Woke ‘ism’ movement for at least 25 years.

Vilde Chaye
Vilde Chaye
3 years ago
Reply to  John Jones

gender is only social, because anything that doesn’t exist and yet is believed in by people owes its existence solely to social construction. Think ghosts, the “soul”, and phlogiston/caloric.

simon taylor
simon taylor
3 years ago

Working in construction, I do meet women who have chosen to work in this industry. They generally tend to be very dexterous and most are not afraid to borrow some brawn when they need it, which happens in a physical job. I think that the attitude of the whole “elite” male and female, is one of diminishing the value of manual work, which is why ( along with bad pay) is why both men and women shun it. Good article though.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Don’t feel able to comment because I am a man.

smanus240
smanus240
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

You illustrate a glaring problem with far too many men, living in our “feminized” societies. To imagine that you’re unable to comment because you are a man is to surrender your autonomy, your personal power, and your God given rights to self determination and self-expression. Our world has been turned upside down when one needs to quote Karl Marx: “You have nothing to lose but your chains” . . .

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
3 years ago
Reply to  smanus240

I am detecting irony in the comment.

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

The possibilities are endless. Apparently there are more David’s running FTSE 100 companies than woman. So if they all change their name to Davina the problem is solved and the gender pay gap eliminated – two birds with one stone!!

Linda Brown
Linda Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

The latest census in the UK will still ask your birth’ sex so that the data on census form isn’t skewed by the fact that some women were previously male and have accrued the benefits of being male. It will also include an additional trans section.

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago
Reply to  Linda Brown

In Scotland they are debating not asking that question on birth sex, only a question on gender

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

How many categories will they have?

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

I believe they only plan to ask what gender you identify as, but from what I can read it has not been decided yet

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

With more then 100 identified. Will they all be listed? It won’t simply be male and female as that would leave out nonbinary people for starters. Plus all the others.

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

That I don’t know, but when it comes to the Scottish Devolved Administration indulging in a bit of virtue signalling it would not surprise me!

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Bell

Hopefully people will select an interesting one when given the chance. Probably could not resist myself.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago

For Clinton feminists, not all women are equal. Nor are all rapists. Some are innocent and are are condemned by the uncorroborated word of one woman. Some are guilty and thankfully are imprisoned. Some hang out with Jeffrey Epstein.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

And some become Presidents

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago

I doubt the women on the Grunwick picket line (1965?) have much in common with Judith Butler.

mt kennedy
mt kennedy
3 years ago

One of my local ‘bin men’ is actually a young woman, but I imagine the job is not as physically demanding as when metal bins were used and had to be lifted up and tipped into the lorry, in the olden days.

Tim Bartlett
Tim Bartlett
3 years ago
Reply to  mt kennedy

In the factory where I work, there’s always been a small minority of women who can cut it doing the real grunt work. Everyone’s happy when one appears, but it’s always been 95% men doing the real physically punishing stuff.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Tim Bartlett

Men are less concerned by the state of their nails, I guess.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  mt kennedy

As the article points out, feminists aren’t looking for equality of opportunity to do the dirty and dangerous jobs. In 2019-20 in the UK, 97% of those killed in the workplace were men.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  mt kennedy

Ditto. I think it’s wrong to think that women are incapable of hard physical work, but fewer are willing to do it.

After all, at one time there were women carrying fish in baskets sixty miles to the market in Aberdeen. And doubtless the same elsewhere. It would kill most of us regardless of gender.

The authors main point is right though about the essential middle-class-ness of current feminism.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  David Morley

“After all, at one time there were women carrying fish in baskets sixty
miles to the market in Aberdeen. And doubtless the same elsewhere. It
would kill most of us regardless of gender.”

Yes, on their backs or even their heads. Women are stronger on a line through the head down to the feet, because of their broader hips (cf. female water carriers in the Third World). Males who routinely carry heavy weights (on the head or by other means) are notorious for ‘back pain’, after ‘depression’ the highest number of claimants for benefit, I would guess. Picking weights up by bending down instead of squatting is also a cause (I was at one stage a postal worker handling heavy parcels as well as letters).

Jon Mcgill
Jon Mcgill
3 years ago

It remains a nonsense the either Clinton is able to pose as freedom fighters on any issue. They are representative of a class not a gender, and that class is wealthy, white and connected in ways that only come about after years of “networking”. Whatever personal strengths Chelsea might have are submerged in her role as the chosen golden child and no doubt we will have to put up with her in some political role sooner or later. Hillary poses as a champion of women’s rights but is disconnected form working class women, from women of color and from any kind of mainstream. This brand of liberation sees the election of Thatcher as somehow an advance for women despite Thatcher’s role as advocate for a right wing agenda. To paraphrase from MacBeth, “stand not upon the order of your going,Hillary, just go”.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

The Clintons strike me as the nearest thing to pure evil ever to have occupied the White House. Literally nobody else comes near them.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Hillary Clinton is not a feminist. She is a Clintonist.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago

At the core of things…
Sex is all about pro-creation.
Trans sex is all about rec-reation.

Marcus Scott
Marcus Scott
3 years ago

Kamala Harris wasn’t elected Vice President. While that might be technically correct in practice that is not how it works. I’m yet to meet anyone who has said they didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 because they were actually voting for Pence.

By the time she dropped out of the Democratic primaries her poll numbers were so bad that she decided not to face the voters in her home state. The probable reason for her low numbers was Democrat voters being turned off by her record as Attorney General in California when she was a “tough on crime” politician.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago

Misdirected anger much, Mary? I am just as keen to dump on Hillary Clinton, the war heroine of Tuzla airport, as the next man (or woman, in your case) but it does seem really strange to write an op-ed about Clinton feminists after Joe Biden, on his first day in office, took a wrecking ball to female sports in US high schools and colleges. You figured out after arm-wrestling with your brother that girls aren’t generally as strong as boys, so why does it just rate a passing mention that Biden wants an America where a high school girl in a throwing event like shotput or javelin would have to compete against a much bigger boy, with full masculine equipment below the waste, who declared that he identified as a girl? And please tone down your anti-Trump rhetoric. Trump’s jock talk from the Access Hollywood tape dates from 12 years before he became president. If that’s really all that offends you about him in his treatment of women, why are you wasting any space on him when you should be attacking Biden?

Vilde Chaye
Vilde Chaye
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

I don’t think you actually read the article; otherwise, you couldn’t possibly have said “female sports gets only a passing mention” or “why waste time on him when you should be attacking Biden,” as the entire i article was clearly inspired by Biden’s executive order on “gender recognition,” as mentioned in the article.

Michael Inglefield
Michael Inglefield
3 years ago

Comment (not discussion point). Great article, Mary…..

Miriam UĂ­
Miriam UĂ­
3 years ago

I can’t wait for the feminist mutiny… directed at the selfish elite who stole the women’s movement to feather their own nests, then tried to abolish females in the name of freedom.
I’m with you on that Mary.

Tad Pringle
Tad Pringle
3 years ago

Trump boasted that because of his celebrity women “..LET you grab ’em by the p***y” Context matters. The truth matters.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Tad Pringle

Yes, but it’s very hard for some to admit that there are women who will be with men because they have money and/or celebrity. Stormi Daniels didn’t believe that Donald Trump would marry her. Or become her boyfriend.

Redeem Points
Redeem Points
3 years ago

How do these complete idiots literally think Trump would go round grabbing female genitalia?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Redeem Points

Well, it would not be unknown for women to want to be with men simply because they were rich and famous. Paulina Porizkova didn’t marry Rick Ocasek because he was young and beautiful. Salma Hayek didn’t marry Francois-Henri Pinault for that reason either. We can all think of examples of beautiful women with ugly old rich guys.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago

There are currently two strains of feminism: one of them seeks to give women as much freedom as men, the other seeks to constrain men as much as women. The latter seems to be winning out.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

I’d put it slightly differently and say that one strain seeks equality for women while the other seeks advantage for women over men. The problem is that a remarkable number of feminists genuinely think they’re in the first camp, which I’ll call Type 1, while their attitudes, opinions and behaviour place them firmly in the second (Type 2).

An example of this is the debate we’ve had here about conception. A lot of women will argue that men have complete control over their fertility. If a man doesn’t want children, goes the argument, he should use a condom, get a vasectomy, or abstain from sex, without his partner’s consent (and within marriage, apparently, where to do any of these would categorically be grounds for divorce).

It doesn’t occur to any feminist that if a woman doesn’t want children she need do none of the above. She can go on the pill and keep the fact secret. She doesn’t need to do without sex or make herself permanently infertile. Equally, she can also come off the pill if she wants to become pregnant, keep that fact secret likewise, and be at no disadvantage.

Pretty well all women fail to acknowledge the inequity of this situation. Yet many who can’t see this will nonetheless identify as Type 1 feminists.

The net effect of this I think is that in many men’s perception feminists who profess to be Type 1 are in fact Type 2 whether they accept it or not, so that all feminism appears to seek advantage.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

I’d put it slightly differently and say that one strain seeks equality and the other seeks advantage.
which is the one seeking equality because if such a strain exists, it can lay down its sword and claim victory. In the US, college enrollment is majority female. Every negative marker, from suicide to dying on the job to dropping out is tilted toward men. Not long ago, there was a “news” story about professional women lamenting the lack of financially suitable male partners.

One male-heavy field after another is lauded for its efforts in recruiting women, yet the opposite never happens. Why not? If the quality of the STEM professions is improved purely by having more females, then the same would apply to nursing, marketing, psychology, and a lot of the woman-heavy professions.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

You’d think there’d be a goal of getting more women killed at work, too.

I think the problem is that women are conditioned to believe themselves disadvantaged. Hence they screen out all evidence to the contrary and see only what confirms their prejudice – a prejudice they are routinely applauded for holding.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I’ll be honest with you – I think the over-abundance of women in teaching has emasculated the teaching profession. It’s become toxically therapeutic, but also perversely money-driven (especially Higher Ed). Many male teachers are leaving in droves – me included. I’m currently looking to move into the private sector.

Liz Wills
Liz Wills
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Lots of female-heavy jobs were previously male dominated – eg. veterinarians, secretarial work, waiters. What happens every time there is a shift from male to female domination of a job is that salaries decline. When it moves the other way, from female to male domination- salaries increase, eg. computer programming. Why do you think that is?

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  Liz Wills

You’ve made the claim. You tell us why.

Liz Wills
Liz Wills
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

You mentioned condoms, then forgot all about them. There is no inequity, you don’t need to go without sex or make yourself infertile to have control over your own fertility. Just wear a condom.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Liz Wills

I have described you in my penultimate paragraph.

Women don’t have to wear condoms. They can take the pill and say they aren’t doing so, and they can not take the pill and say they are doing so.

Men wearing condoms does not give them equivalent control over women’s fertility. Ergo, there is sex inequality in women’s favour, which Type 2s are – of course! – most reluctant to recognise, in case something gets invented to rebalance that.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

No. One form of feminism wishes to find equality. The other form of feminism seeks the impossible – to mould men in the image of woman.

Dan Martin
Dan Martin
3 years ago

I laugh when I see a tiny woman defeat a large, powerful man in a cinematically choreographed martial arts fight. Yet they never show women competing with men in football, American or European. I wonder why. Could it be that is too unrealistic even for the movies?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Martin

Yet you will now see biological men competing on women’s teams, in the US at least. That’s certainly one way to reduce athletic scholarships for women.

Dan Martin
Dan Martin
3 years ago

I think when the stink goes up there will be some “adjustments”. Those wealthy people who are the backbone of support for such nonsense will see their daughters no longer able to compete and then it will become real.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Martin

I’m not so sure. People are intimidated about the whole thing as if they are doing something wrong in wanting girls sports to be for females. Today we all have to pretend that people who say they are female actually are, even when they are not. But I hope you are correct because girls need opportunities for sports and scholarships.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
3 years ago

There was a big “tell” in the Jan 6 Capitol riots. Lickle AOC said she didn’t feel “safe” huddled in the basement with her GOP colleagues.

But, sports fans, the whole point of politics is to be the fearless leader to protect your people. As Worcester said to King Henry, he:

“That brought you home and boldly did outdare
The dangers of the time.”

The fact is that women are not into “outdaring the dangers of the time” Women expect to be protected. And if they are not protected they complain about not feeling “safe.”

High status women in particular expect to be protected. Lower-status women, not so much.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

Anyone remember H Clintons racist and sexist attack on CFK who was at the time President of Argentina? Exposed on Wikileaks late 2010 her language and behaviour seem very typical of an uneducated racist deep south redneck….oh, wait a minute! I expect Harris is the same but a bit more preppy in her language. Their contempt for ordinary women may not be completely down to sexism as they have the same contempt for ordinary men. If you’re neither man nor woman i expect they are OK with you.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

an uneducated racist deep south redneck
if you are going to complain about bigotry, exposing your own is not a credibility enhancer.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I’m not complaining about Clinton’s bigotry, just her cynical real-politik. As for Peckerwoods the socio/geographical group, some are thick and racist, some are not. Even someone as pure as yourself must admit they do have a certain rep not just in the US but far and wide. It is this constituency in Little Rock etc that built the Clintons poitical machine.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

As for Peckerwoods the socio/geographical group, some are thick and racist, some are not.
doubling down on an already bad argument does not improve it. Hillary grew up in the north and went to the type school that happily treats all southerners as inbred hicks.

What you are noting is who she is. It has nothing to do with the South, yet I don’t see you summing it up as just another case of upper-income left-wingers letting their bigot flag fly.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

I have tried but I don’t get it. I live in the middle of a large extended family and the rich ones are women. Other families local to me seem to be the same. In family rituals the women are the organisers and the men follow.
The women dictate over what the children can do or not do. The women decide when to have children, whatever the men think.
The women have been having mammograms and smear tests for years but only recently have the men had routine prostate tests.
The women suffer from PMT and make sure that the men suffer as well. The women suffer for years with the ‘change’ and they make damned sure that the men suffer.

A long time ago, when we were hunter-gatherers, the woman had children and carried on as normal, the men got killed in the hunting expeditions.
Now, today in Covid time, you can see on the ONS site statistics of Covid deaths and Covid infections. Just under twice as many women are infected than men in all age groups but almost twice as many deaths are with men compared to women – apparently because of the chromosomes. So the women are doing the hugging and the partying, takings selfies in groups, etc, and the men are dying.
But still, apparently, the women have a rough life.
Don’t believe it.

kaynape
kaynape
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

You seem to harbour a lot of resentment towards women. Do you think your views could be the result of your jaundiced view, rather than a reflection of reality?

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  kaynape

I think you are the jaundiced one. Nothing above says anything bad about women. It’s just what I see.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  kaynape

How come that any view which doesn’t agree with yours’ is jaundiced? Discuss.

Rachel Lee
Rachel Lee
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Well you seem to have a nice family. When women are in charge it generally seems to be good for everyone. The trouble is in a patriarchal society at large, especially during this pandemic, women are suffering most. On average a woman is killed by a man every 3 days (https://www.femicidecensus…., women take on most of the unpaid caring responsibilities (https://www.weforum.org/age…, there is even a gender bias within medicine in that your needs as a man will be better understood (https://www.theiwi.org/thel…. It’s a good job women have a biological advantage to staying healthy. And yes, women are usually better at talking and sharing; men are being encouraged to talk more too because it’s good for you (e.g. https://ukmensheds.co.uk/).

Frank Reid
Frank Reid
3 years ago

Very bad mistake on President Trump, he was speaking about a group of women who exist in real life that will let you grab them by the p***y just to be in the circle of multi millionaires and billionaires, he was describing a group of women that exist with low morals, his remark was that these women will let you grab them by the p***y anytime, anytime you feel like it. It’s TRUE so there’s no shame or problem with the remark. If your outraged by it your lowIQ.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago

If you’re a woman with a middle-class upbringing and career path, the fact that men are generally stronger than you doesn’t normally make much difference. Chances are you went to a school that discouraged bullying and punished physical violence. You probably now do an office-based job. So why care about arm wrestling?

Do you realise how bizarre this passage sounds? Do you think that schools attended by working class people don’t discourage bullying and don’t punish physical violence? Do you think working class women are at a daily disadvantage because men are stronger than them?

It’s almost as though you think that all working class people inhabit a world of daily violence and physically gruelling labour.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago

Trump may have grabbed ’em by the p***y, and bragged about it in a repulsive way. But is it really better to be governed by an administration that lacks even The Donald’s (apparent literal) grasp of female anatomy?

Lol. Nicely put.

Vanya Body
Vanya Body
3 years ago

Brilliantly argued and all, sadly, so true. I really despair at how the rights of young girls and women in sports are simply being trampled over. The success of so many well-educated women in their careers is achieved only by the support and hard graft of their less-educated ‘sisters’ who are left holding the babies. It just isn’t acknowledged enough.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Vanya Body

Plenty of well educated women with careers have children. And raise them themselves. But I totally agree with you that the rights of girls in sports are being trampled.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago

I can soooo relate to the am wrestling that changed your life bit. My brother and I were physically evenly matched all through our childhood and used to fight quite a bit, with equal results. Then all of a sudden, I didn’t stand a chance, and my brother for a while kind of enjoyed his new found power and abused it. I had to back down from all confrontations. Fortunately, as we grew older he matured and grew out of it, more aware of the responsibilities of his new power (comes from having a Dad and wider male role models who were good ones not poor ones). I on the other hand resented it, this new sense of disempowerment, the physical disempowerment seemed to go, inevitably, with a mental one. I took this resentment into Uni where the wall to wall focus on Marxist-feminist identitarianism and an obsession with oppression, hierarchy and patriarchy. A-ha! It was like a lightbulb going off. And I became quite the little militant. I saw everything through a lens of male power and oppression. And this was compounded by my occasional interactions with not so nice men. It took years to deprogram myself from this as I realised that the world was so much more complex, that some things were rooted in biology and evolution, that male power often led to male suffering. That the people I had so revered back then were almost entirely middle class, with no understanding of any hardships that women AND men suffered – and suffered and weathered together. That women had power of their own. And used it. What I was taught at Uni affected my life, it was simplistic, cult-like thinking. And to now, years later, to see it reflected back again, amplified, like a monster from the dark, horrifies me.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago

Thank you Mary Harrington. Maybe finally we’ll be quit of this idiotic harridan’ tyranny.
But, get ready for the death threats; you won’t get away with this.

kaynape
kaynape
3 years ago
Reply to  robert scheetz

Oh, wait til you hear about real feminism

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
3 years ago

Last time I checked out the WEP’s website I noted that an event offered a “friendly wine bar”.

Zorro Tomorrow
Zorro Tomorrow
3 years ago

The whole argument is stupid and pointless. I doubt you’d find a female boss hiring just women. A woman POTUS is as likely to carry and deploy the launch codes as a man. She wouldn’t hold off because of hormones.
A woman athlete in training for the Olympics is going to out run, out jump the average man -as long as she’s not pregnant and I doubt she’d come last even then.

This “feminism” stinks of emasculation. If they can’t climb any higher they damn well want to make sure nobody else can. Thankfully most sensible women reject the nonsense and get on with it.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Zorro Tomorrow

I doubt you’d find a female boss hiring just women.

Have you looked at your HR department lately?

I have a female report who always wants to hire “girls” because she thinks they do more work than “boys”.

Zorro Tomorrow
Zorro Tomorrow
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

We could be here all day debating that. Oil rig? Plumbing? Electrician? I dare say men are lazy and shiftless at times, that some women are more conscientious but it’s horses for courses and I think you stray from the point, that feminism is nonsense.

Vilde Chaye
Vilde Chaye
3 years ago
Reply to  Zorro Tomorrow

are you seriously suggesting that because an olympic female athlete could, say, outrun most men, they have nothing to worry about from male athletes transitioned to female? Are you kidding? It’s well known that the top female sprinter could be beat by hundreds of high school lads. Martina Navratilova says there are 2,000 male tennis players who could beat the top Serena Williams. Get real.

Liz Wills
Liz Wills
3 years ago

A bit unfair on Hillary here Mary – I’ve read nothing that says she buys into gender identity over sex. Quite the opposite. She’s a solid second wave feminist and has been a staunch campaigner for women’s sex-based rights. The glass ceiling etc was just one part of that. You also can’t neatly combine the women’s march campaigners with the third wave gender identity extremists. The women’s marchers were condemned as biological essentialists for wearing p***y hats! You had one idea for this article, but it’s not as neat as you’d like it to be.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Liz Wills

No, the p***y hat wearers were condemned for being stupid. Just as men would be if they walked around with giant male genitalia hats.

Clinton is not a feminist of any kind. There’s only one woman she is interested in getting ahead and that’s Hillary Clinton. She is perfectly happy to condemn other women as deplorables. And she has never once campaigned for the rights of any of the women her own husband has mistreated.

Paul Goodman
Paul Goodman
3 years ago
Reply to  Liz Wills

Oh please! What type of “feminist” stays with a husband who so publicly betrays their marriage? Not really a role model in that respect.

Derek M
Derek M
3 years ago

Many good points, my only quibble is that there is no evidence (or even claim) that Trump actually ‘grabbed anything’ rather he just engaged in crude talk, unlike Mrs Clinton’s husband of course who is a well known sexual predator

Patrick White
Patrick White
3 years ago

I’ve never seen a woman be any good at a commercial leadership role. The workplace invariably sinks into a hive of cliques and skulduggery. Every single time.

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago
Reply to  Patrick White

To be fair there are many, many male managers who are exactly the same.

Karl Juhnke
Karl Juhnke
3 years ago

I have known this for about 20 years. Racism is the same. Bleeding obvious. Divide and conquer the working class.

svwam95xdh
svwam95xdh
3 years ago

Honey Ryder is not a good example of a passive woman – she murdered the man who raped her, remember? A poisoned spider – “It took him 3 whole days to die”. p***y grabbers please note.

Lama Abu Odeh
Lama Abu Odeh
3 years ago

Thank you Mary. Been trying to figure out why in the world would feminism suicide itself on the mantle of transgenderism and you put your finger on it. It is that sex really doesn’t exist as a thing in the life of the cognitive meritocrats and so they can go ahead and delude themselves it doesn’t exit.

Mark Beal
Mark Beal
3 years ago

Feminist rhetoric has always been a middle-class racket. The idea is still pumped out that World War I suddenly gave women access to the labour market, but working class women had always… erm… worked; in factories, as domestic servants, as seamstresses, as nurses, in agriculture, etc, etc. The Old Bailey online archives are a great source of social history, and just browsing the statements shows you that working class women by and large worked, with or without children to look after.

hijiki7777
hijiki7777
3 years ago

We know that there is a divide in feminism over whether to be gender critical or not. I do not know if there has been any research to find out what proportion of feminists are gender critical, it would be interesting to know. I am not sure either whether the division in feminism on this topic divides along class lines either.

RJ Green
RJ Green
3 years ago

Quite so. And what’s amazing, as in all these discussions, is that they just can’t see it.

RJ Green
RJ Green
3 years ago

PS You don’t have a fear of mats

J. Hale
J. Hale
3 years ago

I noticed long ago that women only demand equal opportunity for high paying, white collar jobs. You never hear women complain about a lack of female sanitation workers, coal miners, lumberjacks, etc.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  J. Hale

Lots of men don’t want those jobs either. Just like lots of men don’t want low paying jobs such as childcare providers, cashiers and house cleaners.

Kathryn Payne
Kathryn Payne
3 years ago

Thank you Mary.

rgalarza2
rgalarza2
3 years ago

Thank you Mary; a well-written article with keen observations.

Adinda
Adinda
3 years ago

The comparison with superhero films does not work. In those films both men and women can do things they can’t do in real life. It is about the opportunity to try traditionally male-dominated jobs.