Oh Hellz Yeah, Hillary should embrace the “Feminist” Label.

[riqster]

https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/oh-hellz-yeah-hillary-should-embrace-the-feminist-label/

As Hillary Clinton starts her run for the White House, some on the Left and in the Center are tut-tutting over whether her endorsements from feminist organizations will “hurt her” during the campaign. After all, lots of Millenials, some Boomers, and ALL the Right Wingnuts dislke the term “feminist”. The Leery Lefties and Simpering Centrists worryworryworry about HRC and her supporters seeming too, well…brash. Forward. Aggressive. Insufficiently deferential. Not “ladylike” enough.

Put another way, they worry that she will act like she has an equal right to run for President. They worry that Hillary will act like women are just as qualified to hold high office as are men. They worry that the dread word “feminist” will doom her campaign, because the notion of gender equality will turn people off.

That’s a steaming load of elephant turds, Gentle Reader. Here’s why:

Number A: Not too long ago, politicos were urged to avoid talking about equality for non-Whites. Civil Rights were a “third rail” in American politics, touch it and watch your bid for office die. So the “mainstream” politicos soft-pedaled the issue, danced around it, vacillated, and as time went on, lost. Because the average American was, as they often are, ahead of the politicians and pundits on the issue. Eventually, candidates who grew a pair and started talking about equality won their races and changed the law of the land to reflect the will of the people and the meaning of the Constitution.

Letter 2: Not too long ago (and in some places, still), politicos were urged to avoid talking about equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people (LGBT) . Gay rights were a “third rail” in American politics, touch it and watch your bid for office die. So the “mainstream” politicos soft-pedaled the issue, danced around it, vacillated, and as time went on, lost their elections. Because the average American was, as they often are, ahead of the politicians and pundits on the issue. Eventually, candidates who grew a pair and started talking about equality have been winning their races and are changing the law of the land to reflect the will of the people and the meaning of the Constitution.

So now it’s Feminism that Nervous Normans and Nellies are scared to embrace. Why yes, they PERSONALLY support equality for women, yesyesyesofcourse THEY do, but others might take offense, so let’s be quiet and timid so as not to offend…F*** THAT F***ING S***. It’s time to recognize that equality for all means just that: for all. People of all colors, all orientations, all genders, and so on. All means all.

Hillary Clinton has already gotten flak for her hairstyles; for her wardrobe; for her age; for just being a woman. She can’t win the votes of the MRAs, the Teabaggers, the woman-haters, the Teabaggers, or the “Republicans”, so why even bother trying? F*** it, she should be what she is and be proud of it.

Since Barack Obama ran for, won, and has been the President, we’ve seen skin color come back up in the national conversation. And we’ve seen some serious progression on the issue, BECAUSE it was right in America’s face: Black Man = President. Only a few eedjits still dare spout their KKK bulls*** in public these days.

If HRC does the same, we can hope for some progress toward equality for women as well. Having feminism in America’s face can only help make that happen.