Monday, February 25, 2008

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Say what now?

Today someone commented (not here) that they were tired of people judging Hillary as agressive and war-mongering and claimed that this would not happen if she was a man and that it's completely irrelevant. I beg to differ. I actually think that how aggressive or hawk-like Hillary would be as a President *is* a live issue and one that I also judge other candidates by.

The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.

It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.

So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Just to clarify

Oh, this crazy, crazy world. Over the last few days, I've heard/seen a few arguments that go like this:

"Just because I did so-and-so* doesn't mean I'm sexist. It was just fun and no-one was offended..."

Let's pause and reflect on this a moment. Hmm. I'm afraid that, actually, yes that is exactly what it *does* mean. You my friend, are sexist. And delusional. (Ahem, let's keep this friendly.)

Whether or not a person *perceives* themselves to be sexist is irrelevant. As is how "fun" the activity happens to be. If someone takes part in an activity that is clearly sexist (in that the point of the "fun" is to demean women - for example, dressing them up like foxes and then "hunting" them, which, might I add, is *completely random* as an example. Indeed.) then they are perpetuating sexism and indulging in it, which by its very nature, makes that person sexist.

And then, if someone (who happens to be a woman) suggests that the activity might offend *other* women, to go on to attack her on a personal level, with their attack focused upon the fact that she is a woman, *most definitely* makes that person sexist.

And a complete and utter Knob-End.

To re-cap: make argument (i) "I am not a sexist but..." and follow it up by action (ii) deliberate sexist attack because someone had the audacity to ruin your "fun" by pointing out something rather obvious makes you: A complete and utter knob-end with shit for brains

*Insert activity of choice here

NB - yes, I am very angry. I am, in fact, furious. I could've, and have elsewhere, made this point more politely and more coherently. But this is my blog, so I can be as angry as I like.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Bit of Obama

If you haven't seen it, watch it.

Interestingly, some people are saying it's schmaltzy. Maybe, but actually I found it genuinely moving - and I'm not even American and/or allowed to vote.