I’ve spent months debating whether or not to write about why I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have mostly put off this blog post due to laziness. I knew that this post alone would take a long time to write, with considerable research necessary. I also knew that to do justice to the topic of Hillary Clinton, I would also need to write a second post on how sexism has affected her campaign (both now and back in 2008).
But as a feminist quite passionate about politics, I’ve finally decided to attempt this massive undertaking.
I usually make necessary reminders of my comment policy at the conclusion of my blog posts. However, considering the wildly misogynistic comments I’ve read and heard regarding Hillary Clinton, I feel compelled to issue this reminder at the beginning of my blog post. I do not permit name-calling. I do not permit misogyny. Furthermore, I require respect for both me and for anyone else who comments. Finally, I am quite capable of discerning between genuine questioning/disagreement and coded remarks not made in good faith. I have zero qualms about blacklisting the IP addresses of the latter.
With that rather lengthy introduction out of the way, let’s jump into why I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton.
tl;dr President Bill Clinton is why I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton for president
I’m sure other people have similar simplistic reasons. Like they don’t think we need another Clinton in the White House, period, just like we don’t need another Bush in the White House.
Or they worry that Hillary Clinton as president would be Bill Clinton’s de facto second presidency. While that particular line of thought is on the sexist side, this is honestly the first time in American history when a former First Lady has a chance to become president. Hillary Clinton has already suggested that she would have Bill Clinton work to revitalize the American economy. This role for the first First Gentleman is a far cry from the usual First Lady roles of meeting with other heads of states and promoting agreeable causes like literacy (Barbara Bush) and beautification of public spaces (Lady Bird Johnson).
But my concern is quite different.
At the very least, Bill Clinton admitted to his “affair” with Monica Lewinsky. While a president engaging in sexual activity with an intern doesn’t quite meet the legal definition of sexual harassment according to the EEOC, it would be grounds for termination pretty much anywhere else. With a power differential that great, I would highly question how consensual any sexual activity would be.
But Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, consensual or otherwise, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Juanita Broaddrick
Juanita Broaddrick has alleged, repeatedly, that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, when he was running for governor of Arkansas.
I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 6, 2016
Trigger Warning: All of the following links include detailed descriptions of rape and traumatic aftermath.
Breitbart: Juanita Broaddrick Provides Never Before Published Details on Bill Clinton’s Rape
Vox: The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
MRCTV: Full Dateline NBC: Juanita Broaddrick on Bill Clinton raping her
ShadowGov: Full Transcript of NBC Dateline report on Juanita Broaddrick
Slate: Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?
I am the first to admit that three of these sources have a conservative bias. But Vox tends to be liberal media, and they linked to both the MRCTV video and the ShadowGov transcript. Slate is also liberal, but that article states the facts while explaining how the same facts can be interpreted two ways.
Other Accusations
Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation against Bill Clinton is the most credible, as well as the one with the most sources. However, the earliest accusation of sexual assault dates back to 1969, when Bill Clinton was a college student. He was hardly a powerful man who might attract a false accusation.
Furthermore, when a man has a long list of accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape against him, I think it’s safe to conclude that at least some of them must be true.
Fox News: A Millennial’s Guide to Bill Clinton’s 20+ Sex Scandals
The Washington Times: The missing Clinton women
The Silence of Feminists and Democrats Now
And yet so many feminists (and Democrats) today are largely silent on the question of whether or not the potential First Gentleman is a rapist. However, I appreciate the honesty of the author in the piece below.
Time: Why This Democrat Won’t Vote for Hillary Clinton
I’m going to quote a lot from this article, because she articulates so many important points.
I was excited about Bill Clinton’s campaign, and I voted for him. I could not have been less concerned about Gennifer Flowers, who showed up in a press conference to announce she’d been his Little Rock mistress. I don’t care about the private, consensual sex lives of my elected politicians…
But then I heard about Paula Jones, who came forward with a very different story — of the ugliest type of workplace sexual harassment. I was shocked and I was disgusted, and I believed her. I assumed we all believed her. Wasn’t that how [feminists] were changing the country for victims of these kinds of acts?
Immediately I was told by my lefty friends and by the lefty press that I was foolish, that I was naive, that I didn’t understand politics…
If a man’s politics—not his personal behavior, his politics—were deemed to be pro-woman, his accuser would be subject to doubt, and to forensic levels of investigation and titanic public ridicule—even from other women…
So when Hillary Clinton tells you that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported,” realize that what she’s serving up is a classic Clinton dodge. She’s not saying that every woman who reports a sexual assault deserves to be believed. In that case, we would have to believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.
The Silence of Feminists and Democrats Then
I was young when Bill Clinton was in office himself. I don’t remember much about politics from then. However, I found an incredible article from 1998 on the feminist reaction after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
Vanity Fair: Clinton and Women
The summary/introduction reads:
President Clinton’s sordid entanglements with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and now Monica Lewinsky have drawn barely a squeak of protest from the powerful writers, lawyers, activists, politicians, and academics who call themselves feminists. As they struggle with fresh allegations from Kathleen Willey, the author reveals some ugly truths about the women’s movement and the commander in chief.
Basically, feminists both then and now hesitate to support the women allegedly attacked by Bill Clinton. He says the right things. I think America was okay during his presidency (I was a kid; everything was okay to me). Even I admit he’s good-looking and charismatic.
So why not continue to victimize a few women for the greater good?
At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten from Democrats, feminist or otherwise. I’m sure there are exceptions somewhere, but every single time I have personally brought up the accusations against Bill Clinton with Democrats, the result has been a lot of hand-waving and dismissal. Plus, feel free to read through the articles I’ve linked above. They indicate that this reaction is not limited to my social circle.
Do Bill Clinton’s Actions Affect Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Bid? Arguments and Rebuttals
Not a single person has adequately responded to my reasoning for why I can’t support Hillary Clinton because of Bill Clinton. Here are the most common responses I’ve received.
Bill Clinton hasn’t admitted to any of the allegations
So we’re just sitting around and twiddling our thumbs until rapists turn themselves in? The vast majority of rapists will never see a day in jail. I have zero qualms with analyzing statements for myself and making a moral judgment against someone, even if that person never goes to trial.
After all, the four people who sexually assaulted me have received zero repercussions for their actions, legal or otherwise. I have been privy to the secrets of too many women and men who have also been sexually assaulted and/or raped. I believe them. I also understand why their attackers continue to walk free today.
Rapists don’t admit to rape–unless you don’t use the word “rape.” [Study 1; Study 2] Bill Clinton maintains he never raped or sexually assaulted anyone–he claims that all of his sexual encounters were consensual.
But I’ve weighed the accusations for myself, and I side with the women. After all, I can’t be the only one who recalls the infamous, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” I don’t need Bill Clinton to admit to sexual assault for me to make a moral judgment against him.
Bill Clinton wasn’t found guilty in a court of law
And neither were the four men who sexually assaulted me. Does that automatically make them innocent? Am I by default a liar, because like so many women before me, I didn’t know how to react in the moment? Because I kept silent about my first sexual assault for over a decade?
(By the way, my own history of people doubting and minimizing my experiences with sexual assault is also why I didn’t want to write this blog post. Because all the dismissals that progressives have given me when I’ve tried to bring up Bill Clinton’s history are practically verbatim to what people have said to me about my own sexual assaults).
Keep in mind how terrible America still was for women in the 1960s and 1970s, the years of the first accusations against Bill Clinton. Marital rape was legal. Second-wave feminists first coined the term “rape culture” in the 1970s as a reaction to most Americans assuming rape, incest, and spousal abuse were rare.
In 2016, survivors of sexual assault and/or rape are still reluctant to say anything or to press charges. I can’t imagine what it would have been like for a survivor 30+ years ago. Of course, Juanita Broaddrick has explained multiple times why she didn’t say anything then. From the Dateline report:
Myers: “The question everyone is going to ask is ‘Juanita, why didn’t you report this 21 years ago?’”
Broaddrick: “I didn’t think anyone would believe me in the world.”
I believe survivors of sexual assault, even when they don’t press charges.
Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for her husband’s actions
I never said Hillary Clinton is responsible for Bill Clinton’s actions. I don’t think she should go to jail for what he did.
However, she is responsible for her decision to remain married to him. She is responsible for what she did to discredit the women who have accused her husband of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.
As a feminist who genuinely supports survivors of sexual assault, I can’t support a woman who only cares about survivors when it’s politically expedient.
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015
Hillary Clinton is just “standing by her man”
Yeah, okay.
If Bill Clinton had just cheated on Hillary Clinton, that would be one thing. But the allegations suggest otherwise.
I highly doubt she is just upholding her wedding vows, considering her husband has obviously broken them countless times.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter why Hillary Clinton has decided to remain married to Bill Clinton. *coughpoliticalgaincough* People who support abusers don’t just get a pass because of marriage. (Obviously victims of abusers are the exception here, since it can be difficult from them to escape abusive situations).
Bill Clinton’s actions won’t affect Hillary Clinton’s presidency
Um, yes they will.
If Hillary Clinton is elected president, her husband will be the First Gentleman. He will be in the White House again. Will he actually treat the female employees and volunteers with respect? Or will they be subject to his sexual harassment, or worse?
Furthermore, Bill Clinton as First Gentleman would just continue to minimize and erase what he’s done to so many women.
How will a president Hillary Clinton genuinely promote any change to help survivors of sexual assault? It’s hard enough to get anyone to believe survivors already. If the half of voters who claim to care about preventing sexual violence and supporting survivors elect a woman who has repeatedly dismissed survivors of sexual assault, what does that say about our country? What does that say about the status of survivors?
I think it says that we only care about survivors of sexual assault when they don’t interfere with our political narrative.
I think it says that we value survivors only when they accuse our idea of a rapist. (Consider the discrepancy in sentences for two student athletes found guilty of rape–the white one will serve just a few months in a local jail).
You can’t judge Hillary Clinton for what Bill Clinton did
Allegory time.
I’m a blogger with a growing social media following, especially on Instagram. Dan helps me primarily with photography and editing, but also with the occasional guest blog post.
What if I discovered that he’s been giving me photos from other photographers this entire time?
What if I discovered that he had plagiarized his guest blog posts?
I could react in two ways.
I could make a public apology, take down his guest blog posts, and remove all photos stolen from other photographers.
Or I could discredit the photographers and the writers who accused him of creative and intellectual theft.
If I did the latter, that would hurt my brand. That would hurt my credibility. That would hurt my reputation as a blogger.
So why shouldn’t I judge Hillary Clinton for Bill Clinton’s actions?
Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump, no matter what Bill Clinton did
Hillary Clinton is not a raging misogynist like Donald Trump; I’ll give you that.
Then again, this isn’t a race between two people. I’m voting for Gary Johnson. If you want to vote for a female presidential candidate, look at Jill Stein.
I know other people have their own reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. (Frankly, more than a few of those reasons are sexist bullshit–see my follow-up blog post!)
But as a feminist, I cannot in good conscience support a woman who doesn’t support survivors of sexual assault.
P. S. For additional reading, see Hillary Clinton Has Earned Her Woman Card and I’m a Christian, and I’m Not Voting for Donald Trump.
The problem is that we have single-seat plurality voting for all significant elected offices, and Duverger’s law is true. So this IS a race between two and only two candidates, when it comes to determining who will be the next president. You have the option of letting other people choose instead of you. You have the option of casting a ballot without participating in the choice of president, so that it will be a matter of public record that a voter preferred neither-of-these.
Then there’s the epistemic status of the allegations. Normally, when a woman comes forward with a claim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape, she faces a very unpleasant situation with little chance of getting the alleged perpetrator convicted in court: given those circumstances, it is very rare for anyone to make false allegations. In 1992, though, it was an open secret that Bill Clinton had had affairs, and a large amount of money was spent seeking anyone willing to accuse him of anything that might stick, the more damaging the better. Imagine for the moment that he was absolutely innocent of doing anything without consent: out of all the women he’d had the opportunity to harass or assault, there would still have been a near certainty that *someone* would succumb to the lure of notoriety and book deals offered by Republican muckrakers. They found pre-fishing-expedition statements and new corroboration for the scandalous-but-consensual accusations, and not for the criminal accusations. Or at least that’s my impression at the time, as best I remember it.
We also have an electoral system, with a “winner takes all” approach to each state (Maine and Nebraska being the exception). In 2008, Georgia voted for Romney over Obama 53.2% to 45.4%. While the margins were much closer during Bill Clinton’s presidency, I believe that had more to do with Ross Perot’s popularity than anything else.
I was a child during Bill Clinton’s presidency, so I remember very little other than his appearances on Nickelodeon. We had an in-class election in my 4th grade class, and we pretty much all elected him over Bob Dole.
I’m sure there were some women who saw the Paula Jones case as a way to get money or fame as well. But if you’ll look through the multiple sources I shared listing the accusations, several women refused to share their name.
The electoral college doesn’t change the basic dynamics: it’s still a system where there’s only one winner being selected by a vote, and where you don’t need a majority.
As for the allegations, it’s somewhat analogous to http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations spurious correlations. If you start with two phenomena, then go find statistics, and it turns out that they’re correlated, that’s reason to believe there’s a connection. But if you take thousands of unrelated series of numbers, whether they’re random numbers or unconnected data about the real world, you’ll find hundreds that correlate well enough that it only has a one-in-ten chance of happening randomly, and some that correlate well enough that it has only a one-in-a-thousand chance of happening randomly. It doesn’t provide any evidence that the phenomena are actually related.
Sort-of-analogously, if you take anyone who’s had a reasonably long career, even if they’re actually a paragon, and you ask leading questions of every last person they ever interacted with, you’ll get some statements that sound bad. They chose that approach on Bill Clinton because he was promiscuous. Given all that, they found less than would be expected.
Gotta debate people from their own premises. She says “this isn’t a race between two people”. Nowhere does she say “this is about the moral purity of my actions, and my feelings are in this case a true representation thereof; and I have no duty whatsoever to pay any attention to the foreseeable consequences of my actions”. If she accepted your claim (and mine) that this *is* a race between two people, and still held to her intention of casting a ballot for Johnson/Weld, then she would be stuck with the conclusion that she was prioritizing her feeling of purity over the well-being of the country. But she doesn’t. As I understand it, she denies the existence of the two-party system.
On the other hand, disq.us/p/18rg1ma
I applaud you for sharing your honest thoughts with your readers. This election season is really tricky (that’s putting it lightly.)
From a historian’s perspective, this election is fascinating, completely unlike anything we’ve seen in modern history.
From a US citizen’s perspective, this election is terrifying.
I have a few more political posts to write. Like I said, I’m quite passionate about politics, even though I realize I’ve barely scratched the surface on understanding it! But I feel it’s important to encourage my fellow Americans to vote. Voter turnout is dreadful.
I don’t have two choices. I have three choices in all states, four in many states.
I agree that Donald Trump is probably a rapist, although I haven’t done much research on any of the accusations other than that of his ex-wife.
I’m not voting for Gary Johnson to feel “pure.” I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 too. I actually support him as a candidate. I’m not voting for him as the lesser of three evils, but because my political beliefs are most closely aligned with his own.
Statistically speaking, I hardly doubt my one vote in a red state (Georgia) for Gary Johnson will decide the electoral outcome of my state. But it can affect the long-term viability of the Libertarian Party, who will get funding in the next election if we reach 5% of the popular vote in this election.
If you want to call that irresponsible, fine, but I hope you’re spending just as much time attacking the over 70% of people who didn’t even bother to vote in the presidential primaries. For the record, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, but I’ve always had every intention of voting for Gary Johnson in the general election.
And your time might be better spent convincing the 45% of people who didn’t vote in the 2012 general election to bother to vote this November.
There are three or more lines on the ballot. But, as a matter of how the system works, there are (at this point in the process) only two possibilities for who might be the next president.
Your vote in a general election cannot affect the long-term prospects of the Libertarian Party: it cannot become a real political force until and unless we change the election system, which can be done only by organizing to campaign in major-party primaries and lobby the politicians the organization either has helped elect, or can credibly offer to help elect to higher office, or can credibly threaten to help remove from office.
Your vote is not primarily a means of expressing your opinion, nor is it particularly effective in expressing your opinion. That’s what your blog is for. Voting third party, as far as its actual effect is concerned, is just another way of not voting.
If voting for whoever ends up losing means you might as well have not voted, then roughly half of voters every year don’t vote.
Based on population sizes and statistics, no one’s vote actually has an effect on the outcome. But in aggregate, voting makes a difference.
Again, if the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the popular vote, that literally makes a difference in the next election.
Living in a red state, if I’m not voting for a Republican, my vote makes zero difference in this election, period. But voting for a third-party candidate can actually lead to long-term change.
“If voting for whoever ends up losing means you might as well have not voted, …”
Nope, that’s not the premise. Voting for someone who, by the way the system is set up, cannot possibly win: that’s what means you’re not participating in the decision.
And no, it wouldn’t matter of the LP got 5%. We would still have a single-seat plurality system, and Duverger’s law would still be true.
Again, it’s not about whether your candidate wins or loses. If you were in a one-party system, casting your vote for Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un, your vote wouldn’t matter. Your vote wouldn’t matter because you wouldn’t be participating in the decision. In that case, of course, you wouldn’t have the option of participating in the decision. Here you do.
You also have the option of doing stuff that can, if enough people agree with you, actually change how the system works, so that it would be a multi-party system with majority voting and multi-member districts. It’s just that casting a third-party vote in a two-party system isn’t what can do that. Convincing people that there *ought* to be a multi-party system, though, is a big part of what could.
I’m a little puzzled now. You say the reason why you’re not voting for Hillary Clinton is because of Bill Clinton. If no one had ever suggested that Bill Clinton is a rapist[1], would you be voting for Hillary Clinton, or would you still be voting for Gary Johnson because he’s the closest to your politics?
[1] It occurs to me that this could imply something unfortunate. To be clear, I think he’s guilty. “No one had ever suggested” is meant to cover both “he didn’t do it” and “he did it but it never came out.” The important thing is that, in this hypothetical[2], you have no reason to suspect he’s a rapist.
[2]This question is, of course, entirely pointless and only about my curiosity. I don’t mean to imply you have an obligation to answer it.
I would still be voting for Gary Johnson, because my political preferences are closest in line to his own. But I also wouldn’t be so vocally opposed to Hillary Clinton. Four years ago, I quite publicly supported Gary Johnson, but I didn’t really bother criticizing Obama or Romney. This election, I’m quite open in my criticism of both Clinton and Trump.
There’s nothing wrong with being curious. 🙂
Also, in 2008, I didn’t know about the Libertarian Party. I voted for McCain, but if Clinton had beat Obama for the nomination then, I would have voted for her. I didn’t know about any of the allegations against Bill at that time.
I have always thought that the fact that she is still married to a man who cheated on her and who also allegedly raped several women was very un-feminist. I have honestly been pretty surprised by all the feminists who support her. Then again, maybe I’m not surprised because of all the hype about her making history being the first female presidential nominee from a major political party. I just feel like the facts should outweigh the “making history” thing, but I guess that’s just me.
Personally, I am simultaneously excited that a major party has finally nominated a woman and terribly disappointed in their choice. Does that make sense? Like I had ALL THE FEELS watching the clip of the female delegate, who is older than her right to vote, at the convention.
I at least appreciate when feminists are intellectually honest that Bill Clinton is a scumbag, but they’ve made that compromise for the sake of policy. But instead, I usually get the arguments I outlined above, which essentially push the problem under the rug.
Yes I totally get that. It was a very cool moment when she accepted the nomination. And it’s great that we could finally have a female president. It’s about time. And I got emotional when they interviewed that woman who remembered her mother going to vote for the first time after women were given the right. But none of that is enough for me to vote for Hillary. To the people who are voting for her because they actually agree with her politics and belive she’s the best choice, great! Go for it! But I know of a few people who are only voting for her because she’s a woman and that’s so not cool. But I have a feeling you’ll probably address that next week.
Wow, I had no idea about the Juanita Broaddrick thing at all, so thanks for bringing it to attention in your post!
However, I will still be voting for Hillary. I mean, I wish we could just have Obama again or Bernie, but even with the things I just read here, I still feel that she is truly the lesser of two evils. America, and surely the world will suffer greatly under a Trump presidency – something which I feel like we all need to rally together to do *anything* to prevent, which for me means forgoing a third-party candidate this time even though that feels like the most moral thing to do 🙁
I certainly understand your perspective, even if that is not the right choice for me.
What do you think about consequentialism, at a theoretical level? If a proposed action follows some generally-good rule or is motivated by some virtue, but will foreseeably have horrible consequences, should one ignore the consequences and go ahead with the action?
As I understand it, Christianity has mostly favored deontological (rule- or duty-based) ethics or virtue ethics that are non-consequentialist, whereas my views are in line with the opposite tendency in contemporary culture: if you want to put it in terms of duty, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our actions.
Theoretically, I think I could only choose one set of ethics over the other in a case-by-case basis. I don’t think I would ever be able to make a choice directly against my conscience, but if I had two choices that aligned with my morals, I would absolutely consider the potential direct consequences of my actions.
However, practically, you and I are at an impasse regarding the consequences of me voting for Gary Johnson. While I’ve certainly enjoyed our discussion, it is no longer a good use of my limited time to continue it. I am not responsible for people who vote for Trump. If he wins the election, it will not be because I voted for Gary Johnson. I have explained my reasoning in every way I know how. While I certainly understand the issue with our “first past the post” voting system, I disagree that I should just throw my hands up in the air and not bother to at least try to change it.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the discussions on my blog. However, I do not think either of us will convince the other of our position on this particular question of voting third-party, and thus a continuation of this conversation would not be productive.
Apparently it wouldn’t, because the position you attribute to me is so very different from the one I actually state. Disappointing.
I approved your other comment, but it’s not showing.
Your argument is that voting third-party is akin to not voting at all, it will do nothing to change our voting system, and it will not affect the long-term strength of the Libertarian Party. I disagree.
Your theoretical question is almost exactly in line with the hundreds of theoretical or hypothetical questions people (almost always men, for some reason) have thrown at me over the years as a means to “get me” or something. While you have consistently not shown nefarious motives in your commenting history, I did tie together your theoretical question with the actual comments blaming my one libertarian vote for Trump’s election.
I’m a Christian but I spent a lot of time in non-believing limbo during which I thought a lot about consequentialist ethics… from that regard, if you look at what Hillary has done, it actually makes it worse.
Back then in the 90’s, she put on a clinic for how to downplay, dodge and avoid any accountability for this type of abuse. Bill only got in trouble for one *tiny* thing–getting caught by DNA evidence, in a bald-faced lie about a consensual action. If you listen to his public apology, he didn’t even apologize for the brazen way he lied … and aside from impeachment and disbarment, that’s it. It’s not just that he didn’t go to prison, he didn’t even face any of the social consequences that should come from it. And although she was his aggressive “defense lawyer” through it all, she came out even less than negative. She probably came out net-positive for the patience and endurance displayed.
And what did every business with a philandering CEO learn from that? What did every church with a dirty pastor, every school with a pervy band director, every sports team with a tendency to turn a blind eye toward reports… what did they learn from that? The *consequence* for that impassioned defense of an abuser, was for the next 20 years, everybody in the future who wanted to defend an abuser by downplaying the harm, attacking the victim, and pretending it didn’t happen, had good reason to expect they could get away with it.
… including Donald Trump of all people. Obviously, the jerk who did it is the one who is the most guilty, but I believe that in some sense, a portion of the hate we have for him when we see his wrongs, rightfully rests on the First Couple who gave the rest of the nation a working recipe and reasonable expectation that this was something that didn’t really matter. That when you’re rich and famous “they don’t even care, they’ll let you do it”😞
So, most of the tens of millions of victims since the 1990’s have had someone in a position that they could trust and help them, but instead put them down, dismissed them, maybe told them they were exaggerating or that they really wanted it, or think of the consequences and the harm it could do to your abuser, to “our institution” if such scandal were public, hush hush dear… for so many of those victims, the hushing voice was modeled after the person who looks like a shoo-in now, for 45th POTUS. And for another 4 or 8 negative-consequence-free years, the world will see a de-facto display that yes, burying abuse is worth it; it brings great rewards… and what will the next 20 years look like? That is some serious consequences.
You are no feminist. It is people like you that refuse to see her as Hillary Clinton and only think of her as Mrs. Clinton that don’t have a leg to stand on when claiming that women should have equal rights. I am so sick of the attacks against her husband. Have you looked into Trump’s marriage? HE is the cheater in his family, He is the guy that laughed about assaulting women. He is the one running for President! No “feminist” would claim that a woman that is smarter, more experienced, and so much more qualified for a job, shouldn’t get it because of her spouse. For crying out loud!!
Ah, yes, the No True Feminist fallacy. I highly recommend you read through my Feminism category before judging me for prioritizing the survivors of sexual assault.
From the blog post that apparently you just skimmed:
“I never said Hillary Clinton is responsible for Bill Clinton’s actions. I don’t think she should go to jail for what he did.
However, she is responsible for her decision to remain married to him. She is responsible for what she did to discredit the women who have accused her husband of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.
As a feminist who genuinely supports survivors of sexual assault, I can’t support a woman who only cares about survivors when it’s politically expedient.”
I’m not voting for Donald Trump. http://bellebrita.com/2016/08/christian-not-voting-donald-trump/