A friend posted what she decribed as Michelle Obama’s “brilliant speech” in which she claims to have been “shaken to the core” by what the Trump campaign has called “locker room talk.”
So I watched it. And to me every bit of her faux outrage rang false. So I said so:
It's not about politics, she says? I'm not sure I can believe that.
I'd have a lot more respect for the speech if she'd mentioned the ex-President who demeaned the office with an intern and a cigar, and the wife of that man (for whom Michelle is campaigning here) who impugned every single one of the women accusing her husband of sexual assault. If it's truly not about politics, and all about the treatment of women, how can she stand on the stage with the name 'Clinton' behind her and not mention that?
And if it's all about the words used to demean women, as she says, all about words that musn't be spoken in public, why then is she a fan of (for example) hip hop stars for whom the 'locker room talk' about which she's so outraged is just what they'd use in an early morning warm up?
And if it's the actual treatment of women about which she's genuinely outraged, and shaken to her core, and needing to speak out, the where is her outrage at the treatment of women by Muslims, about women made genuinely second-class citizens by the culture, about the forced clitorectomies, the forced marriages, the wife beatings and the 'honour' killings? Speaking out about *that* vast maltreatment would be a genuine election issue, not this.
I'd have a lot more respect for her and her speech if I thought she was speaking against all of that, if she were speaking on behalf of all women and not just those she hopes will vote for her candidate against the other fellow, and that all her faux outrage isn't just directed at someone because they happen to be running for office in the opposing party and this is a convenient point of attack.
It's not all about politics, she say? I'm sorry, I don't believe her for a second.
Trump's politics and person are odious, and the Republican Party has to own the guilt for putting him on the ballot. But let's not pretend for a second that he's this isn't just another campaign speech in a pretty fetid political year.
Talking like that is probably a pretty good way to be unfriended, I reckon.
.
3 comments:
Quiz. Who wrote the below 'against' Hillary Clinton?
Quote:
"One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.
[Snip]
… [Clinton] is about to be ordained [my underlining] the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.
A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported…
[Snip]
What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?
Where are those who will shatter the silence? "
That sounds like John Pilger? (He's always had a thing for Madeleine.)
Correct, sir.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/
He's halfway their on causes, but is too scared to then see the reality, always falling back in the ends being via (and arriving at) collectivism (which is exactly where identity politics came from). An inability to apply reason because these mystics are so scared of individualism.
Post a Comment