Open letter to Hillary Clinton - who wants to join me?

submitted by BEB from self.GenderCritical

Someone linked an Op Ed about women's rights that Hillary Clinton wrote for THE ATLANTIC . The Atlantic welcomes Letters to the Editor, so let's write one.

Powerful women like Hillary Clinton don't know we exist unless we tell them ourselves, because the US media has done a complete blackout of GC concerns.

We can sign it "The Women of SAIDIT Gender Critical" so we remain anonymous.

Anyone in? Also, any objections to signing it that way? We can sign it "Some of the Women of SAIDIT Gender Critical" instead?

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BEB[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Hillary Clinton ATLANTIC op ed I'm referring to was posted by notgonnabenice (thanks!) and the post is called "Power Shortage" if you want to read Hillary boasting about how much she's done for women's rights.

But now, Hillary's daughter is actively working to destroy women's rights by siding with transgender demands activists who are working globally to destroy women as a distinct legal category.

How can we fight for our rights if we don't even exist as a group, Hillary?

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Hillary Clinton Is hated at incredible levels.

What exactly do you think informing her of us is going to do? And Who Is going to listen to her anyway? That assuming She Would even be interested in showing support.

She can't even Make her own daughter think, why do you believe others Will listen?

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Hillary Clinton also has a lot of support -she was on track to be the most powerful person in the world and she won the US popular vote.

Clinton is also a 2nd Wave feminist. And it was clear when her daughter corrected her regarding trans issues that Hillary had not thought them through, because to 2nd Wave feminists the whole "men can be women if they think they are" is ridiculous.

Beyond that, Hillary's a really smart woman (I had a friend work for her) and she is very well-respected in many circles. I do think that she can be educated. And I do think that forums like this one and the other GC ones are full of information.

So even if Hillary doesn't become the next JK Rowling, making her aware of what's going on will bring the issue to powerful circles, and that's what we need to do.

Sitting on subs like this is wonderful for venting, for talking, for getting inspiration, but we need to act. Time is truly running out.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Clinton is also a 2nd Wave feminist.

Really? I'd like to see some "receipts" aka evidence of that. How do you explain her long record an opportunist, classist, sexist, corporatist, woman-derider, "slut shamer," racist, homophobe, militarist, Western imperialist, money-grubber and total fibber and fantasist?

https://youtu.be/5IpJUfy-Roo

https://youtu.be/NULkwDWjbmc

https://youtu.be/6I1-r1YgK9I

https://youtu.be/fZkK2_6H9MM

https://youtu.be/QBcmSykEs7w

https://youtu.be/sh1eQxjG6Lg

https://youtu.be/WujFEnXZITU

https://youtu.be/Ox7F9kFzC1w

When second-wave feminism was in its heyday, Hillary Rodham Clinton had no involvement in it. No one in feminist circles in the 60s-80s ever heard of her! She was a Goldwater girl in the late 1960s. In the 1970s and 80s she defended a child rapist, and laughed about what the girl victim had gone through, served on the board of Walmart... But her main job and interest back then was getting, keeping and polishing her "MRS degree" as wife to to serial sex offender Bill Clinton.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What I meant was that like many women of that time, she believed that women deserved equal rights, etc., as opposed to Lib Fems and their BDSM, "sex work" as a viable career, "sex-positivity," sexting, anal sex on demand, plastic surgery fans, trans activist support, etc.

I think yours and my experience of the era of 2nd Wave feminism were different, and maybe because I only caught the tail end and lived in a place where life was very relaxed in general: a lot of women in my sphere were "feminists" and that's it. Women who just wanted equal rights, equal opportunities, sports and sex-segregated spaces. They never read a feminist tract, they weren't particularly fussed about what to call themselves, and, in fact, many didn't call themselves "feminists."

That would be the category that I would put Hillary Clinton in, not "2nd Wave feminist" so I misspoke by describing her as such although I do seem to remember something about her giving an inspirational speech at her college.

In any case, the point I wanted to make is that Hillary Clinton is very powerful, and, as she showed in the ATLANTIC op ed, she was and is well-aware that the women's struggle for equality is far from over. Before her daughter reeled her back in, Hillary was on the verge of disagreeing that TWAW, and I doubt she actually believes it.

I think that if Hillary sees all the information GC activists have collected, she will think on it and discuss with other powerful people, at least in private.

I firmly believe that exposing powerful people to GC ideas will not harm GC activism, which stand on its own merits to sane people.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

She won the popular vote because her opposition was Donald Trump, not because she is loved and respected. THere were gazillions of people who specifically prefered Trump over her despite "identifying" as leftists because they hated her. I have no doubt that there are some circles in which she is liked, but I seriously doubt that those circles are powerful enough to do anything.

I do think that she can be educated.

This is one of the most disturbing turn of phrases I have ever seen in my entire life. It sounds like it' s straight out of TRAs.

Sitting on subs like this is wonderful for venting, for talking, for getting inspiration, but we need to act.

I agree, I just disagree on what Clinton can do. She isn' t as influential or beloved as you think she is.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Also, the phrase "can be educated" existed well before the trans demands activists hijacked it. I refuse to let the fact that trans demands activists use certain words or phrases stop me from using them. That would be giving into their gaslighting, in my opinion.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, the phrase existed before them, and it was creepy before them as well.

"Can be educated" always sounds like an active process in which someone forces their opinions on someone else who disagrees or doesn' t have an opinion to begin with.

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See, I used to work with kids, and I never thought "can be educated" was creepy, I mean, a child "can be educated" to use addition to grocery shop, but that was before the trans lobby got a hold of it.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which is your prerogative. I am not telling you to change your way of expressing yourself. I just said that I find it creepy. I think "taught" is a much better verb to use in these situations than "educated".

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Hillary Clinton was a US Secretary of State, in that role, and her role as a US Senator and in her role as wife to Bill, she met a lot of tremendously influential people worldwide.

The Clinton Global Initiative used to draw globally prominent movers & shakers, like the then sitting president of the US, Barack Obama, who spoke there.

There were tens of millions of Americans who very much voted for Hillary Clinton for Hillary Clinton. I did not. I didn't vote for her because she's a war-monger (I didn't vote for Trump either), but I can still acknowledge that she remains an extremely influential person on the national and global stage.

At this point, we need women like her to know what's happening. They might never speak publicly about this issue, but they will speak to their trusted circles.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Meeting influential people doesn' t mean that those people are going to back her up. Especially if that means going against TRAs.

"Democratic" politicians in power are not going to throw their career in the shitter by supporting her when they know perfectly well that shutting up or going TWAW is going to do the opposite.

And sure, while there were million of Americans voting for her for her, I doubt those were the majority of her voters. Most people voted for her because she was the democratic candidate and they always vote democrat, other did it because they wanted a woman as president and were ok with having anyone who fit that description in that position, others to oppose Trump, others because there were no other candidate to vote for.

She isn' t the Obama type who was voted because he was loved (as arguable as it was), she was voted, mostly, for other reasons. But whatever, the letter is yours, if you want to write it go for it. I think it' s a waste of time, but I am not going to stop you from doing it.

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, I'm of the philosophy that it is better to "light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

For instance, WoLF (the Women's Liberation Front) is a relatively tiny group of women, in a nation, the US, that has about 170 million or so women, but the few dedicated and ferocious women of WoLF have accomplished tremendous things.

BTW: WoLF is getting matching funds through September (I am not a member or even an affiliate, I am only an admirere) so please donate!

http://womensliberationfront.org/

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

WOLF is doing it on their own, though.

I don' t really have issues with trying to gain support from influential people, I just think that the more influential they are, the more they are going to ignore us at best or publicy oppose us at worst.

I think we would have much better results with organizations like WOLF that are small (but growing) because they were made specifically for this cause.

I think it' s wishful thinking to expect politicians or people in power to gain a conscience and be honest in public because they are going to be destroyed. The only thing they care about is how they are going to present themselves for the public, and nowadays if you are critical of trans bullshit you are destroyed. In the future, it may very well change, but I think that change needs to start from orgs and regular people. Politicians are not our friends.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In the US, some politicians are actively helping gender critical causes, but they are all Republicans.

And I do think that some of these Republican politicians are sincere in their horror at what's happening to women's sex-segregated spaces and women's sports. Also about the transitioning of children.

It's the Democrats who baffle me, because they are so FUCKING GUNG HO on destroying women's rights/ safety/ privacy/sports and vulnerable children's mental and physical health. And free speech, on this issue.

And then the Democrats' hypocrisy on claiming to be the party of science...

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, I agree with that. Right now some republican politicians sound saner than democrats.

They still belong to a party that doesn' t have a stellar history on supporting women' s rights, though. And I think that if left on their own they would turn extremist in a heartbeat. Leftists as well: this idiocy they are in exists only because they have no idea how to be tolerant and keep thinking at the same time. They can do only one, and decided to go so open minded that their brain fell out.

Honestly, at this point I think that every politician is only held back from their more extremist ideas by their need to appeal to voters and nothing else. I am an incredibly misanthrope, so nobody is more surprised than me about the fact that I have faith in the masses, who seem to still be draw to reality and common sense than anyone else.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I met Hillary and Bill in the early 90s, and had a very close relative who was a big wig in Bill's POTUS admins. You are naive to think and claim Hillary genuinely gives a flying fuck about women and womens' rights for ethical or philosophical reasons. The Clintons only care about what can get them ahead and bring in the cash.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have an old friend who worked for Hillary, this was a while back, but Hillary was very powerful at the time. My friend really liked her, said she was truly passionate about healthcare, but, who knows?

As I said, I myself didn't vote for Hillary, but that's because of her war-mongering tendencies. I wasn't a fan of Bill because of Clinton's lying to the American people about Lewinsky, but more his war-mongering (like the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory - am I remembering that correctly?) and then the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and some other legislation I'm forgetting. However, I wonder how much Bill's hand on anything was forced into compromising with the Republicans?

I did see Bill speak once in person, long after he left office, and was blown away by how friggin' smart he was and yet he didn't come across as a policy wonk but more like Billy Bob down at the local dive bar who just had the gift of gab.

Anyway, in the ATLANTIC piece, Hillary positions herself as still being poised to save women's rights, so, if she is truly calculating, she'll see that gender ideology directly conflicts with women's rights and might position herself as the one to swoop in and set things straight, if only for the history books. Again, who knows?

[–]ruskiix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Honestly she’s probably already on our side (it’s certainly consistent with her priorities) but wouldn’t gain anything by drawing attention to it. The moment has to be right, otherwise you just create another angry mob of distraction. We just aren’t there quite yet, IMO.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I think that she is on our side. I think that she won't say so until the tide has turned (like she did with gay marriage), but she will read and think and discuss this issue with very powerful people.

Even if Hillary Clinton is a silent ally, she's an extremely powerful one.

We have nothing to lose by sending her information on the GC movement. And everything to gain.

[–]whateverneverpine 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, she disagrees with her daughter, and has done so publicly.