medialens | Consider the third of the claims: that 'All her life' Clinton 'has
fought the feminist cause', according to Toynbee, and is 'a proud
feminist woman', according to Penny.
So what is feminism? The dictionary definition is straight forward
enough: 'the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of
the sexes'. Wikipedia summarises the goal:
'to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate or support the rights and equality of women.'
Hannah McAtamney added an important observation on Huffington Post:
'Feminism is not the belief that one gender should be raised in power above another. The very definition of feminism shows a complete opposition to this belief.'
This is key: feminism is indeed in 'complete opposition' to the idea
that one gender should be raised in power above another. And yet it
could hardly be clearer from Clinton's ruthless service to elite power,
notably the military industrial complex, and from her leading role in
the destruction of whole countries like Libya, Honduras and Syria, that
she does just that. Clinton has certainly acted to ensure that the
interests of elite Western men and women are 'raised in power above' men
and women in these target countries.
A high-level state executive who manages a system that destroys and damages millions of lives in systematically subordinating both men and women
to state-corporate power cannot be described as a representative of
'centrist soft-liberal feminism', if the words have any meaning.
We strongly support authentic feminism as an obviously just response
to the inequality, exploitation, prejudice and violence facing women the
world over. The deepest support for equality of the sexes is found in
the practice of 'equalising self and others' propounded by many ancient
spiritual traditions, notably Mahayana Buddhism. This 'equalising'
begins when we accept that no person's happiness or suffering can be
considered more or less important than anyone else's. It is obviously
irrational and unfair to suggest that 'my' happiness matters more than
'your' happiness. When we reflect repeatedly on this equality of
importance, we can actually come to feel a sense of outrage at the idea
that 'I' should benefit at 'your' expense. 'I' can actually come to take
'your' side against 'my' own egotism.
From this perspective, it is absurd to suggest that a woman's
suffering matters less than a man's.
Similarly, it is absurd to suggest
that the suffering of a Libyan or Honduran man or woman matters less
than that of a male or female member of the American 1%.
The idea that Clinton is a 'feminist', that her presidency would
represent a victory for feminism, is a fraud. In reality, it would
involve the exploitation of that vital cause by violent, greed-based
power.
