Yesterday I logged onto facebook, and a (male) childhood friend who has gone way left on multiple issues had liked a pro-Hillary post by someone I didn’t know. I was curious so I read on:
I was taking a law school admissions test in a big classroom at Harvard. My friend and I were some of the only women in the room. I was feeling nervous. I was a senior in college. I wasn’t sure how well I’d do. And while we’re waiting for the exam to start, a group of men began to yell things like: ‘You don’t need to be here.’ And ‘There’s plenty else you can do.’ It turned into a real ‘pile on.’ One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I’ll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense. It got very personal. But I couldn’t respond. I couldn’t afford to get distracted because I didn’t want to mess up the test. So I just kept looking down, hoping that the proctor would walk in the room. I know that I can be perceived as aloof or cold or unemotional. But I had to learn as a young woman to control my emotions. And that’s a hard path to walk. Because you need to protect yourself, you need to keep steady, but at the same time you don’t want to seem ‘walled off.’ And sometimes I think I come across more in the ‘walled off’ arena. And if I create that perception, then I take responsibility. I don’t view myself as cold or unemotional. And neither do my friends. And neither does my family. But if that sometimes is the perception I create, then I can’t blame people for thinking that. [Emphasis added]
(Hillary Clinton, in Humans of New York, FB post. You can read it here)
Now, in all fairness, I agree that self-control, and particularly having control of your emotions is a good—a strong—thing. It has always been a primary part of my own self-understanding, and a central part of the woman I want to be, as well as my understanding of what a Natural woman should be like. I cannot, and would not want to, condemn what she says here about her development of emotional self-control. That’s laudable and I have to give her credit where it’s due for that. Women, as a general rule, are allowed to be far too emotional, and not trained—and consequently never learn—to control their emotions as they should.
But that’s not the point of this post. Hillary is a feminist, and this statement displays her inability to empathize with men to its full extent. The men who spoke to her that day had valid points—particularly the one who mentioned the draft. I couldn’t help but notice the way Hillary—and most of those commenting on and sharing this post—are responding with the most unbelievable dismissal of his concern. Hillary states “and they weren’t kidding around. It was intense.” Well yea, you bet?
A young man, who is facing the very real prospect of being drafted into a war he probably does not understand and may not agree with, to die in a foreign and alien land, possibly never seeing his future, voices a concern and her response is shock that he is not “kidding around”? That is not something to kid around about. Moreover, it is frankly disgusting that she and others seem to think that this is an example of an oppressive interaction for her as a woman, and not that it is oppressive for a woman to consider a career in law more important than a man’s life. That is disgusting.
This is indeed not the first time Hillary Clinton has shown a remarkable and inexcusable lack of empathy for male struggles and what war means to men. Let us not forget this jaw-dropping comment she made in 1998:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
(Jack Kammer, “If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules?”, p. 83)
Men’s Rights writer Jack Kammer describes this statement as “the most incredibly feminacentrist statement of the twentieth century” and it is easy to see why someone would describe it that way. Let me fix this for Hillary:
Men are the primary victims of war. They lose their lives, their futures, and the ability to know the joys of being with all of their loved ones forever—often at very young ages, and in very brutal circumstances. They have to leave the only home they’ve even known—forever—to die far from any familiar place. They don’t live to be refugees, and if they do, they aren’t given the same consideration as women who claim refugee status (unless they are not White, of course). They don’t have to worry about raising their children, because a relationship with their children has been torn from them forever by death: they don’t get to see their children anymore, or hear their laughter, or watch them grow up.
Yes Hillary, women are the primary victims of war indeed—because those who die are not the primary victims, those who mourn them are (right, Hillary, right). . . While it is true that those left behind suffer immensely from the grief of loss, this does not make women the “primary victims of war.” It is frankly astounding that anyone would say such a thing. The extent to which women as non-combatants suffer in war is directly related to the suffering of the actual primary victims. Everything women suffer in war is because of the loss of their men.
While I believe that battle has often been the proving ground of character, and that women Naturally should share the battlefield in a Natural society, the thing that stands out about the draft is the utter indifference of feminists to this form of government compulsion which has always been leveled exclusively on men.
If the draft were forcing only women to go and die in wars, then it would have been abolished by feminists years ago. We would be hearing in our history books about how this policy called the draft was a part of Patriarchy that oppressed women, by holding men free of the compulsion to give up their lives in combat for the state. We would be hearing the tales of the “courageous” women who forced the state to acknowledge that female life is not worth less than male life.
Alas, we do not here such things, because the draft only takes men, and not women, and because the draft declares that male life is less valuable than female life, which is exactly what feminists declare themselves. Consequently, feminists are not fighting the draft.
There is no excuse for a woman like Hillary who sails “on flowery beds of ease, While others fought to win the prize, and sailed through bloody seas” to dismiss the real primary victims of war, or to act as if their experiences are less important than passing a law school entrance exam.