There’s a certain kind of feminism that gives feminism a bad name. Â Like Jess Phillips’s ludicrous but headline-grabbing allegation that Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of ‘low-level misogyny’. Â Or the way the media rallied round Laura Kuenssberg to depict those who accused her of an anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory bias of sexism.
In the first case, an ambitious MP and an opponent of Corbyn used a phony feminist argument in order to a) attack Jeremy Corbyn and the ‘misogynist’ left and b) get her name in the papers – in the knowledge that there are sections of the media that will always respond eagerly to anyone who suggests that a leftist leader of the Labour Party is guilty of discriminatory practices.
In the second case, accusations of sexism were used to discredit legitimate criticism of Kuenssberg’s snide editorialising. Â We can expect to hear a great deal more of this kind of feminism over the next few months, now that the Democratic Party machine has completed its work and elected Hillary Rodham Clinton as the presidential nominee.
It goes without saying that Clinton’s critics on the right will be accused of sexism. Â In the case of many Donald Trump’s supporters, such accusations may well be correct – some of the time. Â But criticize ClintonÂ from the left- or even refuse to get behind her – and you are likely to find yourself painted with the same brush by Clinton’s supporters.
Yesterday The Guardian‘s Polly Toynbee served up a taste of things to come, in a piece calling on the left to ‘Â put aside its sneers and pray that this strong woman will get to rule the world.’
Toynbee might find this odd, but there are some of us who don’t actually want anyone to ‘rule the world’, Â regardless of whether it’s a ‘strong woman’ or a strong man.Â Toynbee has looked closely into our hearts however, and seen real darkness. Â She knows that in an era where ‘insurgency and novelty trumps experience’, left-of-centre opposition to a woman who ‘ all her life…has fought the feminist cause, for abortion and for equal rights, fearlessly’ can only be motivated by sexism.
‘ If you are naturally left of centre, especially if you are a woman, yet you find you instinctively dislike her, ask yourself why, ‘ she writes. Â The answer, she insists, Â lies in the fact that a ‘wall ofÂ noise from hostile men warps many womenâ€™s perceptions too’, to the point when ‘ ifÂ women of the left do break into the bastions of power, the sisters often view them as sell-outs to the establishment, as if permanent outsiderdom and victimhood is the only true mark of feminism.’
Yeah, the sisters will do that, won’t they? Â As in thrall as they are to that ‘wall of noise.’ And naturally, being Toynbee, she can’t help following up this patronizing dismissal by noticing that this disorder Â is ‘Â a wider disease of the left among Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn supporters too. To win is to lose.’
Meanwhile, beyond that nihilistic sexist fantasyland:
‘Outside, the world looks on aghast at any possibility America could choose a racist, sexist brute over a feminist with a long track record of standing up for the right causes. For the young, sheâ€™s been around all their lives, not new enough to be exciting. Yet the prospect of a strong woman leading the world should be a beacon of hope to women everywhere.’
Call me a sexist if you will, but I don’t like Clinton at all, and it has nothing to do with her gender. I don’t like her because I regard her as the worst kind of machine politician, who advances by networking with the rich and powerful whilst pretending to represent the poor and the powerless. Â I don’t like her because she is a Wall Street shill, like her slick husband,Â Â who rakes in millions giving speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs while promising to take on bankers, and doesn’t even have the guts to publish transcripts of her speeches in case their damage her progressive credentials.
I don’t like her because she has been one of the most recklessly hawkish and warmongering politiciansÂ in a country that already abounds with them, who has promised to pursue an aggressive and militarist strategy as president. Â Clinton’s feminist supporters are entitled to think differently, but I don’t see a woman who laughingly says ‘we came, we saw, he died’ in response to Gadaffi’s sodomisation with a knife as a ‘beacon of hope’ the most inspirational role model for young girls.
I don’t like Clinton because she lies consistently, Â about big things and small things, whether misremembering a sniper attack in Bosnia or lying about her emails. Â Of course male politicians do the same thing, but I don’t like them either. Â I don’t like Clinton’s belligerent and uncritical support ofÂ Israel. Â As Shania Twain once sang, that don’t impress me much. Â And despite the endless talk of her ‘experience’ and ‘competence’, I find her track record of supporting strategically incoherent and criminally destructive wars and regime changes without any regard for the consequences either before or after them just a little bit alarming.
And those who ask what might happen if Donald Trump had his ‘ finger on the nuclear button’ should remember that Â Clinton once boasted that America could ‘totally obliterate Iran‘ and has promised to take military action if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Â Â Some may see this kind of talk as an expression of female empowerment, Â but I would have been no less appalled if a man had said the same thing. Â .
I could go on, but I might bore you. Â So I’ll conclude with this. Â In the end my hostility to Clinton isn’t about Clinton. Â I just think it’s a testament of massive political failure that the US presidential race should be fought between the two most hated contenders in American history at such a critical political moment. Â I think its a grotesque travesty that millions of Americans are now forced to choose between Trump and Clinton, because the Democratic Party machine chose to support the Clinton dynasty and ignore one of the most inspirational grassroots campaign in recent memory.
And I resent the fact that feminism is being instrumentalised to silence criticism of a corrupt and self-serving status quo and glorify a candidate who doesn’t deserve glorification, and who, as far as foreign policy is concerned, is no less dangerous than Trump himself.
And contrary to what Toynbee and others say, there are many other people – both men and women – who feel the same. Â And we are not sitting in caves chewing on mammoth bones and looking for new ways to express our hatred of women – we are simply tired of lesser evilism in a world that is crying out for something better, and will not get it, either from Donald Trump or Hillary Rodham Clinton.