Hillary Clinton Failed to Sell Feminism at Rutgers

By Jacob Miller

 Hillary Clinton Speaks with the Director of the Eagleton Institute of of Politics (Ruth Mandel) at the RAC

Hillary Clinton Speaks with the Director of the Eagleton Institute of of Politics (Ruth Mandel) at the RAC

 

The day began with a light rain. Tensions were as a thick as the ominous fog that began to settle on New Brunswick — a fog that said, “Hillary Rodham Clinton has arrived.”

You read that right: On March 29th, thousands of Rutgers students, faculty, and alumni gathered in the Rutgers Athletic Center on Livingston Campus to hear the failed Presidential Candidate speak about her heroic clash with the patriarchy during the 2016 election.

In all seriousness, Clinton’s speech was nothing new. While she touched upon Russian influence and the NRA, her main focus was the public's perception towards women in politics. At one point, she claimed that attempts to "silence" her following her loss to Donald Trump represented a double standard since men were never told to "get off the stage and shut up." However, there are multiple examples of Mitt Romney being labeled a 'sore loser’ following his loss in 2012. The same applied to John McCain and his loss in 2008. The Washington Post published an article titled "The 9 Best Sore-loser Moments in Politics." As sexist as it may seem, all 9 people mentioned are... wait for it... men!  The notion that Clinton was told to quiet down after her loss simply "because she is a woman" is nonsensical. 

Clinton also discussed the famous incident involving Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. While reading a letter criticizing Jeff Sessions during his Attorney General nomination process in 2017, Warren was told to yield the floor because of her violation of Senate Rule 19, which forbids one senator from impugning another. Since her male counterparts were able to read the same letter uninterrupted following the controversy, many claimed Warren was held to a sexist double standard. This can be resolved with the employment of Occam's Razor: What's a simpler explanation, that the male senators were able to freely read the letter because of some evil conspiracy that seeks to stop female senators from speaking during nomination processes... or because Mitch McConnell didn't want any more bad publicity after the backlash he received from cutting off Warren initially? You can decide for yourself. 

Clinton claimed that Trump only insulted the physical features of female candidates. In actuality, Trump went on an "equal opportunity" insult campaign during the election season. At one point Trump said there is  "plenty of subject matter" on Rand Paul's looks, and he repeatedly referred to Marco Rubio as "Little Marco."  

The night would not have been complete if Clinton failed to bring up the multiple instances of "mansplaining" she encountered during her campaign. This included the horrific and endless "finger wagging" of Donald Trump (this is so ridiculous it isn't even worth addressing). 

Clinton also finds it unfair that women are held to a different standard when it comes to emotional constraint. The truth is that both sexes have social norms they are expected to follow. Yes, women may be expected to stay composed and act in a more "delicate" manner, but men are endlessly pressured to demonstrate strength, vitality, and status. Where were the feminists when Trump called Jeb Bush "weak" and pushed him to the verge of tears? You can criticize the fact that norms exist, but you can't claim that only one sex is forced to follow them. Regardless, for every time Clinton was labeled "shrill" by irrelevant trolls for her speaking style, Trump was labeled mentally ill in the mainstream media for his. 

Lastly, Clinton raised questions regarding women's (and especially non-white women's) roles in broader political representation. Nobody has responded to claims of this kind with as much skill as the widely acclaimed social critic Christina Hoff Sommers

 

Modern life is a complicated mix of burdens and advantages for each sex. Too often, feminism focuses on gender inequities among elites: CEOs, MIT astrophysicists, U.S. senators. It is true that there are too few women in those positions, but we need to consider the entire workforce for context. Most backbreaking, lethally dangerous jobs — roofer, logger, roustabout and coal miner, to name a few — are done by men. It is men — especially working-class men — who are disproportionately crushed, mutilated, electrocuted or mangled at work. Activists lament the dearth of women in the Fortune 500, but they fail to mention the Unfortunate 4,500 — the approximate number of men killed on the job every year.
Men are also the have-nots in education. Hispanic and Native American women are now more likely to attend college than white men. Unless we find ways to help them, a large and growing cohort of young men — white, black, Hispanic, you name it — are unlikely to find a place for themselves in the modern economy. When men languish, so do the women who love them.

 

To summarize philosopher and University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson, the idea that men and women have been in some sort of cartoonish conflict throughout history is a complete delusion.

If we keep allowing 'sore losers' like Hillary Clinton to keep fueling these delusions — with the aid of  ludicrous anecdotes and platitudes — the West might as well begin digging it's own grave (a task, by the way, that will only get more difficult since feminists will probably start advocating for female quotas in physical labor).