Moar election.
Every time I read a feminist blog talking about all the media attacks on Hillary Clinton, every time I see one of these attacks myself and every time there is a call to vote for her because she's a woman by someone in the feminist blogosphere, I almost want to align myself with her. Almost.
Then I see this:
Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. Tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.
Instead of teaching about it in schools, she'd rather just have the parents do it. And if they don't want to teach their kids about the homos, she's not going to do anything about it. See, the US used to have that sort of mentality with sex education, and look where that landed us. You can't trust all parents to teach their kids about reality, because there are a lot of wackos who will refuse to do it.
There are two or three sections in which she basically goes on about how she supports civil unions (and how *positive* that is!), and how DOMA was a great thing because it kept the GOP from passing the Federal Marriage Amendment (lol what?). Then, there was this:
Q: When your husband was elected president, it was a very hopeful time for the gay community. But in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. A year from now, are we going to be left behind like we were before?
A: Well, obviously, I don't see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it. You know, we certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going. You know, I remember when I was running for the Senate as first lady marching in the gay pride parade in New York City, and to a lot of people that was just an unbelievable act.
(emphasis mine)
Where does she get the idea that she and her husband were working towards LGBT equality when Bill Clinton passed not only DADT, but the Defense of Marriage Act? How does that help LGBT legal equality? It doesn't. And I don't care that she marched in a gay pride parade. That doesn't make up for supporting a law that pushes LGB in the military into a closet and making a federal law that keeps LGB from getting our legal rights. And as demonstrated by the first bolded sentence, she doesn't even think that she and Bill "left behind" the LGBT community. It's like she doesn't even realize the depth of the damage that DADT and DOMA (and the ideas behind them that the Clintons are implied to believe) inflict.
Speaking of DADT:
Don't ask don't tell was an important first step, But talking about this as though there is a reality out there that a president or a Congress can change with the snap with a finger does a grave disservice to the American people. We have a political process. There's checks and balances, the Congress was adamantly opposed at the time to letting gays and lesbians serve openly. "Don't ask, don't tell" was the compromised policy.
Congress didn't want LGB serving openly in the military, so a "compromise" was made to not let LGB serve openly in the military? That's not a compromise, that's letting bigotry walk all over you. (Yes, I know she opposes it now, but the fact that she can't grasp why DADT was an assbackwards policy to begin with makes me wary of what she'll say if any other LGBT issues are brought up.)
Of course, Hillary Clinton is no crazy homobigot. But she has shown that she's not on the same page (or even in the same book) as the LGBT community when it comes to our struggle for equality. And I am reminded of this every time she says that she will "work for women" (or when someone else who supports her says that). Because I know HRC will not work for *all* women when she can't even admit that DADT and DOMA were complete mistakes that only drove us backwards. What about gay, bisexual and transgendered women? How is she "working" for us when she won't openly support marriage equality and the abolishment of the closet in the military? I can't begin to imagine her positions on other, less-talked-about LGBT issues. The fact that she's hardly mentioned issues that mostly affect women of color (and, therefore, not white women like herself) also leads me to believe that when she says "women", she's thinking of white, straight, cisgendered women like her. So whenever some white feminist blog (or white feminist) says we feminists need to get behind HRC 'cause she's a woman and will work for women, I want to throw something at them. Because I really don't think HRC will work for women; I think she will work for white, straight, cisgendered women. Not queer women, not women of color. Just women like her. Privileged women. And privileged women =/= all women.
Then I see this:
Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. Tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill. We haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.
Instead of teaching about it in schools, she'd rather just have the parents do it. And if they don't want to teach their kids about the homos, she's not going to do anything about it. See, the US used to have that sort of mentality with sex education, and look where that landed us. You can't trust all parents to teach their kids about reality, because there are a lot of wackos who will refuse to do it.
There are two or three sections in which she basically goes on about how she supports civil unions (and how *positive* that is!), and how DOMA was a great thing because it kept the GOP from passing the Federal Marriage Amendment (lol what?). Then, there was this:
Q: When your husband was elected president, it was a very hopeful time for the gay community. But in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. A year from now, are we going to be left behind like we were before?
A: Well, obviously, I don't see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it. You know, we certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going. You know, I remember when I was running for the Senate as first lady marching in the gay pride parade in New York City, and to a lot of people that was just an unbelievable act.
(emphasis mine)
Where does she get the idea that she and her husband were working towards LGBT equality when Bill Clinton passed not only DADT, but the Defense of Marriage Act? How does that help LGBT legal equality? It doesn't. And I don't care that she marched in a gay pride parade. That doesn't make up for supporting a law that pushes LGB in the military into a closet and making a federal law that keeps LGB from getting our legal rights. And as demonstrated by the first bolded sentence, she doesn't even think that she and Bill "left behind" the LGBT community. It's like she doesn't even realize the depth of the damage that DADT and DOMA (and the ideas behind them that the Clintons are implied to believe) inflict.
Speaking of DADT:
Don't ask don't tell was an important first step, But talking about this as though there is a reality out there that a president or a Congress can change with the snap with a finger does a grave disservice to the American people. We have a political process. There's checks and balances, the Congress was adamantly opposed at the time to letting gays and lesbians serve openly. "Don't ask, don't tell" was the compromised policy.
Congress didn't want LGB serving openly in the military, so a "compromise" was made to not let LGB serve openly in the military? That's not a compromise, that's letting bigotry walk all over you. (Yes, I know she opposes it now, but the fact that she can't grasp why DADT was an assbackwards policy to begin with makes me wary of what she'll say if any other LGBT issues are brought up.)
Of course, Hillary Clinton is no crazy homobigot. But she has shown that she's not on the same page (or even in the same book) as the LGBT community when it comes to our struggle for equality. And I am reminded of this every time she says that she will "work for women" (or when someone else who supports her says that). Because I know HRC will not work for *all* women when she can't even admit that DADT and DOMA were complete mistakes that only drove us backwards. What about gay, bisexual and transgendered women? How is she "working" for us when she won't openly support marriage equality and the abolishment of the closet in the military? I can't begin to imagine her positions on other, less-talked-about LGBT issues. The fact that she's hardly mentioned issues that mostly affect women of color (and, therefore, not white women like herself) also leads me to believe that when she says "women", she's thinking of white, straight, cisgendered women like her. So whenever some white feminist blog (or white feminist) says we feminists need to get behind HRC 'cause she's a woman and will work for women, I want to throw something at them. Because I really don't think HRC will work for women; I think she will work for white, straight, cisgendered women. Not queer women, not women of color. Just women like her. Privileged women. And privileged women =/= all women.