Hillary made it official. She is running for President of the United States. While I and many other women and liberal Democrats have waited for this moment for a long time, I can tell the 2016 political races are going to have a negative effect on media, culture, social media, and America, in general. For this reason, I vow not to participate in the negativity and the drivel.
Already, Hillary has had to field questions about how she will balance being POTUS and being a grandparent — a question no man has ever been asked when running for President (or any other office, for that matter). Critics have already started in on her hair, her makeup, her “new look” for the campaign — none of which has anything to do with her capabilities of running the United States of America.
When I ran for Congress in 2014, I was open about my status as a progressive liberal, bisexual, pagan, single mom in the very Red State of Mississippi. The Tea Party and right-wing Republicans around the country criticized everything about my physical appearance, from my eyes (“creepy”), to my nose (“needs a nose job”), to my weight (“a sad, pathetic overweight woman looking for attention”). I thought my stance as a progressive liberal, LGBT woman combined with my track record as an activist would make me the perfect candidate to fight for the people of my state. To many in my state and elsewhere, I was exactly what they feared in political office — a confident, capable woman who let it be known I would not tolerate oppressive institutionalized (male) bullshit.
Hillary can expect the same treatment, but on a much, much larger scale and exponentially more vicious.
Granted, Hillary has been in the public spotlight for decades and is probably accustomed to such treatment, but the fact that a female candidate’s appearance is even considered by the media and the voters speaks volumes about how far women still have to go in attaining equality on every level of our existence. In fact, the more a female candidate’s appearance is discussed, the more likely she is to lose her campaign for office. This all undermines Hillary’s decades of work for women and girls and her ability to be the Commander-in-Chief.
While it is easy to degrade the GOP (Teahadists, Tealiban, Right Wing Nut Jobs, Stupid Party, ammosexuals, etc.), contributing to the negativity will not help. Therefore, I will NOT post any political snark. I have personal knowledge of what the female candidate is going through. I know for whom I will vote and why, and I do not need to sink to the level of the other party.
Copyright 2014 by Trish Causey.
I saw a short “article” (i.e., post on a gossip rag) about Madonna possibly dating a famous opera tenor. It mentioned that she has had several “toyboy” relationships since separating from her husband, and it made a big deal of the fact that Madonna is older than Kaufmann.
The article is sexist and misogynistic. But what else is new….
How many real-life relationships and Hollywood films have featured a male star who is much older than the female co-star? Think of any film in the past 30 years starring men such as Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, even George Clooney, and you’ll notice that an older man being with a younger woman is perfectly accepted by the public. But when it is the woman who’s older, she’s judged in the media as if she’s robbing the proverbial cradle. And why is it that when a famous “older woman” dates a younger man, it makes news? (“Here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson….”)
Perhaps the prudes in our society should know that in the Middle Ages, it was commonplace for an adult man to be engaged to a female child and wed her when she was 15 in order to build socio-economic and/or socio-political alliances. In fact, a man could marry (in a church, by a priest) a girl who was younger than 15 as long as the man promised not to “touch her” until she was 15 — as 15 was the magic age condoned by the church. Glad to know a pinky-swear was protecting young girls from being ravished by their much-senior husbands. (Not.) There are even instances recorded of men being engaged to infant girls — all for the wealth and security of rich folks invested in patriarchal society. (“Jesus loves you more than you will know….”)
The other part of the “article” that annoyed me was the “toyboy” comment about Madonna, referring to her various lovers since the end of her marriage. First, who cares that she’s had several lovers? Or any? That people with no lives actually care about Madonna’s sex life is ridiculous. Secondly, shaming a woman for taking lovers is misogynistic, and yet, it is nothing new. If she is following her heart (or her body) with her relationships, that is her business.
Do we really need to go over how men are lauded for taking lots of lovers? A man who dates (sleeps with) lots of women is called a “lady’s man”, a “playboy”, a “player”. His cred goes up. But when a woman dates (sleeps with) lots of men, she’s considered a “slut”, a “whore”, a piece of trash. When a woman follows her sexual passions, she’s characterized as a carnivorous pariah. Because good girls don’t behave that way — “bad” girls do. Because good girls go to heaven, while “bad” girls go everywhere. (“Heaven holds a place for those who pray….”)
It’s the 21st century. We should be able to talk honestly and respectfully about women over age 40 having sex — or about women having as many lovers as they want — without judgment.
It’s nearly 2015. The Middle Ages were a thousand years ago. Women should not have to justify having sex. At all.
- Contact Trish for a consult
- Subscribe to ArousedWoman Magazine
- Sign up for the ArousedWoman newsletter
CALL IN to (646) 787-8587 and voice your opinion on this ridiculous verdict, or post your comments in the online chat room.