The theme of this blog is that free love and “the strong woman” (who prevails over men) may be more important to Hillary Clinton’s following than specific policy proposals or her character.
It is a mystery to many in the media why Democrats and Independents don’t “care” about Hillary’s past improprieties or crimes. In my view, they are ignoring the obvious: younger women are either happily promiscuous or on the marriage market often requiring a prolonged period of testing in bed. Hence, the conservatives’ taboo against abortion and contraception falls on deaf ears.
Many older married women, especially evangelicals and Catholics may object to such conduct. Indeed, the Democrat Party is not shy about emphasizing sexuality in their pitches to “the women’s vote” or to gays, including those bound permanently to domineering mothers. (https://clarespark.com/2012/10/03/the-sexual-revolution-1- and https://clarespark.com/2012/10/03/the-sexual-revolution-2/)
So much should be obvious; less clear is the role of media in elevating what critical 70s feminists called “role reversal”: if men subjugated women, the correct remedy was to beat men at their own game, and the “strong woman” came into her own: witness the superwomen so popular in mass media today. (For a stunning example in prominent feminist artist Judy Chicago, see https://clarespark.com/2012/11/15/female-genitals-as-red-flag/, whose uber-popular “The Dinner Party” failed to historicize female heroines, instead turning each one into vaginal images to be consumed by the viewer. In Judy Chicago’s oeuvre, sex becomes aggression, exemplified in her photo as “boxer.” legs spread wide apart.)
Do the numerous courses in the history of women fail to notice that although women have been subjugated throughout history, there can there be no doubt that Western women have benefited from the status revolutions conferred by such factors as Judaism, Christianity, and the Industrial Revolution.Patriarchy as it had been known for eons, was drastically modified.
We have yet to mark how much misogyny might be attributed to the growing power and influence of women in the West.
The Clare Spark Blog 
Judy, like many other artists, was trying to maximize her fans.
Comment by clarelspark — October 30, 2016 @ 3:55 pm |
[…] This blog is about the fecklessness of “the Republican establishment.” In prior blogs I have noticed that both major political parties cater to “the People” (a demagogic term never broken down into structural components, especially class or gender differences in needs and outlook: see https://clarespark.com/2016/06/04/multiculturalism-the-missing-term-in-the-trump-fiasco/ and https://clarespark.com/2016/06/09/sex-and-aggression-in-hillarys-following-in-either-gender/. […]
Pingback by Are “the People” misguided? Is America “racist”? | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — June 11, 2016 @ 8:27 pm |
Very radical thinking! Will ponder on this subject.
Comment by wien1938 — June 11, 2016 @ 12:00 am |
I’m never convinced by the repeated attempts of feminists to apply “role-reversal” to gender roles. It simply assumes that men and women are completely identical and merely pointed by society in different directions. But when applied, we find ourselves either looking at mild grotesques or mere anodyne images which fail arouse either desire or ire. Rather, I suspect it shows the limits of the Rousseauque folly in which such philosophies are rooted.
The image of the boxer is fascinating as a study in the flaws of such thinking. It places what we today would clearly recognise as a lesbian-erotic aura around the boxer and her trainer. To my eyes, it appears as though their defiance is not the subversion of taking on masculine clothes or roles but the defiance of the heterosexual viewer. It is an almost fragile defiance, as both characters know it is a mere charade. Whereas, if the conventional image is seen of a male boxer and his trainer, the image is of strength, unity and resolve.
Is this because the image is one with the presentation of the genitals without any of the signs of sexuality? The boxer is shorn of her hair, her bosum is not apparent beneath the baggy sweater and her waist is enveloped in the same, She appears a shapeless woman. Consequently, do we see her as a woman or as a female? A woman is endowed with sexual appeal; a female is simply a category.
Thoughts?
Comment by wien1938 — June 11, 2016 @ 3:49 pm |
[…] Sex and Aggression in Hillary’s following in either gender […]
Pingback by Links to some blogs on feminism | YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — June 9, 2016 @ 6:57 pm |