Meet the Vagina Voters

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gingersnap
    Resident stylistic consultant
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 24058

    #1

    Meet the Vagina Voters

    Meet the Vagina Voters
    The women voting for Hillary because she's a woman are setting feminism back a hundred years.
    Brendan O'Neill | May 3, 2015

    "I intend to vote with my vagina."

    Have you ever read a more squirm-inducing sentence than that? It appeared in a pro-Hillary piece in Dame magazine, written by a person with a vagina who intends to vote for Clinton because she also has a vagina.

    Let's leave aside the unfortunate image conjured up by that sentence ("You can hold a pencil with that thing?!") The bigger problem with such unabashed declarations of "vagina voting" is that they confirm the descent of feminism into the cesspool of identity politics, even biologism, and its abandonment of the idea that women should be valued more for their minds than their anatomy.

    Kate Harding, the vagina voter in question, isn't only going to vote with her vag—she's also going to tell everyone about it. "I intend to vote with my vagina. Unapologetically. Enthusiastically... And I intend to talk about it," she wrote in Dame.

    She thinks Hillary would be a great president because she "knows what it's like to menstruate, be pregnant, [and] give birth."

    So you're going to pick your leader on the basis of her biological functions, the fact she's experienced the same bodily stuff as you? Imagine if a man did that. "I'm voting for Ted Cruz because he knows what it's like to spunk off. And he knows the pain of being kicked in the balls." We'd think that was a very sad dude indeed. Why is it any better for a female commentator to wax lyrical about voting on the basis of her biological similarity to a candidate rather than any shared political outlook?

    The point of Harding's pussy politics, as I think we should call this biologism among some in the Hillary camp, is to say that it would be a brilliant, symbolic breakthrough if the U.S. were to have its first-ever female president.

    It would be "enormously important," she says. "American women have been bleeding for over 200 years"—again with the blood!—"and a lot of us have arrived at the point where we just want someone with a visceral, not abstract, concept of what that means."

    There's something profoundly sexist in this. Hillary is valued, not for her ability to think abstractly, which is the very essence of politics, but for what she represents viscerally—the visceral being, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, the bowels, "the seat of emotion."

    A hundred years ago, the precise same view of women as visceral rather than abstract creatures was used as an argument against having them in the political realm.

    In 1910, the London-based journal The Anti-Suffrage Review said women have difficulty "forming abstract ideas." "Woman is emotional," it said, "and government by emotion quickly degenerates into injustice." Yet now, a century later, the potential first woman president of the U.S. is hailed by some for her visceral—"not abstract," in Harding's words—understanding of women's lives and everyday issues. To stick with the biological-function theme, modern feminism is pooping all over the suffragettes, who fought tooth-and-nail against the valuation of their viscera over their brains.

    Harding's pussy politics is only a more physical, blood-obsessed version of one of the main arguments coming from Hillary's cheerleaders in the media: that she deserves to be elected because she's a woman, because she has a vagina.

    In response to the claim that Hillary is "playing the gender card," Jessica Valenti says "good," adding "I hope she plays the gender card so hard..." Valenti writes about "the very important, symbolic and necessary vision of the first woman president," and says "that's a gender card I'd play again and again." In short, she's voting with her vagina.
    More.

    Words fail. I would never vote for someone based on some weird accidental similarity with me. Whether it's sex organs, birth state, hair color, or dog ownership - the idea is absurd.

    Reason
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."
  • phillygirl
    Not superior, just kind
    • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
    • 19840

    #2
    I used to all the time. It's like the March Madness brackets. If I don't have a good reason to vote for or against anyone, then gender, ethnic origin, etc. come into play. That's never been an issue for a presidential vote, but certainly has happened with smaller local offices.
    Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
    Robert Southwell, S.J.

    Comment

    • Celeste Chalfonte
      apostate
      • Saturday, October 5, 2013
      • 27897

      #3
      Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
      More.

      Words fail. I would never vote for someone based on some weird accidental similarity with me. Whether it's sex organs, birth state, hair color, or dog ownership - the idea is absurd.

      Reason
      But people do, all the time, and always have. I'm not going to vote for someone just because we have body parts in common, but voters DO tend to vote for a person with whom they identify. It's why candidates emphasize things like having come from a poor family, or having been in the military, being a child of immigrants...never mind that, in order to be able to run at all, they've currently got a net worth such that they could buy and sell an entire state without noticing the blip in their accounts, they flew a desk in a safe place for the duration of whatever war due to family connections, or the immigrant parents were wealthy children of minor nobility in a first-world country - some Joe Lunchbucket will identify with, and vote for, them. Because they are regular guys, just like him...except for that fortune in their bank account and the taxes he pays that they don't.
      "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

      Comment

      • Gingersnap
        Resident stylistic consultant
        • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
        • 24058

        #4
        I know it happens but it makes me crazy.

        It's irrational. I would never vote for a Christian or a Colorado resident or a knitter or whatever simply because we shared some label.

        Women really ARE different from men: sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad ways. However, I want candidates who have principles and follow through on them and desirable principles aren't a sex-linked factor.
        "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

        Comment

        • Celeste Chalfonte
          apostate
          • Saturday, October 5, 2013
          • 27897

          #5
          Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
          I know it happens but it makes me crazy.

          It's irrational. I would never vote for a Christian or a Colorado resident or a knitter or whatever simply because we shared some label.

          Women really ARE different from men: sometimes in good ways and sometimes in bad ways. However, I want candidates who have principles and follow through on them and desirable principles aren't a sex-linked factor.
          Hate to disappoint, but good luck finding principles in the political class.
          "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

          Comment

          • scott
            Go-to Guru
            • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
            • 15799

            #6
            "Pussy politics..." I chuckled at that, and then remembered that it's what we've had in the White House since 2009.
            "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
            -John Locke

            "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
            -Newman

            "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
            -Newman

            Comment

            • RobJohnson
              Senior Member
              • Tuesday, April 22, 2014
              • 1393

              #7
              "I intend to vote with my vagina."
              Oh my.........


              I hope it's a tight race.

              Comment

              • Norm dePlume
                Err foil
                • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                • 14904

                #8
                Originally posted by RobJohnson View Post
                Oh my.........


                I hope it's a tight race.
                You can introduce her to your hanging chad.
                Enjoy.

                Comment

                • Lanie
                  Finally have my self respect.
                  • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                  • 4829

                  #9
                  There are lots of schools of thought on this. One is that Hilary doesn’t share everything in common with all women. I once heard a left socialist speaker ask once “Do you think Hilary Clinton has anything in common with the woman who works at McDonalds just because they’re women?” I think he had a good point. That woman at McDonalds is struggling to make ends meet. Clinton is struggling to become the President.

                  Another school of thought is that Clinton will better be able to represent women’s interests because she is a woman. I know Clinton is pro-choice (but don’t assume all other women are). I do think a woman president might be better tuned in to the needs of let’s say single mothers and be able to plan policy accordingly.

                  There is also a belief that a woman would do a better job than a man with foreign affairs. Instead of running off to war, a woman might try to find other options first. Clinton took it too far with Benghazi. “Do they really need help? Do they? What difference does it make?” Now, not all women think alike on that. I think it’s possible that Condi Rice would have been too quick to go to war.

                  At the end of the day, you should look at her perspective policies and how she’s done on jobs in the past. Is there anybody who would vote in Anne Coulter because she’s a woman? What about Sarah Palin? No? I thought we should vote with our vaginas.

                  Comment

                  • Tom Servo
                    Area Man
                    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                    • 5898

                    #10
                    Yeah, good luck voting with your vagina. I tried to vote with my penis once and they had to sanitize the voting machine after they threw me out of the polling place.
                    “Any sufficiently advanced capitalism is indistinguishable from rent seeking.” ~ =j

                    Comment

                    • Gingersnap
                      Resident stylistic consultant
                      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                      • 24058

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Lanie View Post
                      There are lots of schools of thought on this. One is that Hilary doesn’t share everything in common with all women. I once heard a left socialist speaker ask once “Do you think Hilary Clinton has anything in common with the woman who works at McDonalds just because they’re women?” I think he had a good point. That woman at McDonalds is struggling to make ends meet. Clinton is struggling to become the President.

                      Another school of thought is that Clinton will better be able to represent women’s interests because she is a woman. I know Clinton is pro-choice (but don’t assume all other women are). I do think a woman president might be better tuned in to the needs of let’s say single mothers and be able to plan policy accordingly.

                      There is also a belief that a woman would do a better job than a man with foreign affairs. Instead of running off to war, a woman might try to find other options first. Clinton took it too far with Benghazi. “Do they really need help? Do they? What difference does it make?” Now, not all women think alike on that. I think it’s possible that Condi Rice would have been too quick to go to war.

                      At the end of the day, you should look at her perspective policies and how she’s done on jobs in the past. Is there anybody who would vote in Anne Coulter because she’s a woman? What about Sarah Palin? No? I thought we should vote with our vaginas.
                      As VPs go, there was nothing wrong with Palin although most people believe that Tina Fey's comedic character and Palin are the same individual.

                      Palin probably has more in common with the vast majority of American women than Clinton ever will: more than 1 kid, special needs kid, daughter giving birth out of wedlock, self-employed in husband's real business (not charitable trust), put herself through school over time, normal house (not mansion/servants), etc.

                      But neither Palin nor any female candidate has some magical insight into American womanhood nor would one have some kind of special powers in terms of foreign policy or domestic affairs. All of that is leftover cultural baggage from the Victorians.

                      Women are fine with voting for wars or warlike tech. Women have been the majority of policy advisers and guiding hands for single mothers, kids, and schools for a very long time to little effect. Where it might count is in terms of risk-taking in financial matters. Women really are more conservative in resource management (for good and bad) but the President is dealing with numbers that are virtually imaginary so this slight difference might not matter.
                      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                      Comment

                      • Adam
                        The way to a woman's heart is through her taste buds.
                        • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                        • 16885

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                        As VPs go, there was nothing wrong with Palin although most people believe that Tina Fey's comedic character and Palin are the same individual.

                        Palin probably has more in common with the vast majority of American women than Clinton ever will: more than 1 kid, special needs kid, daughter giving birth out of wedlock, self-employed in husband's real business (not charitable trust), put herself through school over time, normal house (not mansion/servants), etc.

                        But neither Palin nor any female candidate has some magical insight into American womanhood nor would one have some kind of special powers in terms of foreign policy or domestic affairs. All of that is leftover cultural baggage from the Victorians.

                        Women are fine with voting for wars or warlike tech. Women have been the majority of policy advisers and guiding hands for single mothers, kids, and schools for a very long time to little effect. Where it might count is in terms of risk-taking in financial matters. Women really are more conservative in resource management (for good and bad) but the President is dealing with numbers that are virtually imaginary so this slight difference might not matter.
                        Unavailable for comment:


                        It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                        In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                        Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                        Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                        Comment

                        Working...