[L]et’s make things simple: Clinton does not support the rights of women. She supports the rights of “good” women. These are the rights of heterosexual, upper-middle class, wage-earning women. These women don’t complicate domestic life by demanding wages for housework. Clinton cannot question the basis of the divine right of access which men have to women’s bodies without compromising the special privileges she has been granted by perpetuating them. She operates as a “feminist” on the basis of a conditional surrender to the male-supremacist network as a whole. She is feminist in the context of a power derived from men. She is powerful on men’s terms, for the sake of men’s goals, and only insofar as she allies with them. These are reasons to question Clinton as the appropriate nominee. If she does get nominated, it will be doubly crucial to hold her accountable and bring her record to light.

New contributor Giulia Abrami on Hillary Clinton at Tits and Sass today on International Women’s Day, in “Clinton/Dworkin 2016: Andrea Dworkin And Sex Workers In An Era Of Hillary Clinton Feminism”  (via marginalutilite)

I don’t dismiss Dworkin as too radical, I dismiss her as bourgeois, and as based in male power as Hill Pill

Leave a comment